Lords Sitting of 19 April 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.
Lord Bradbury Lord Bradbury— Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

War Pensions: Payment Errors
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether severely war-disabled war pensioners will be expected to make repayments in cases in which mobility supplements have been paid twice because of errors by the agencies concerned.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, approximately 400 war pensioners have recently been asked to repay amounts of attendance allowance or disability living allowance which they should not have received in addition to their war pensions, mobility supplement and constant attendance allowance. In cases where the overpayment has occurred as a result of official error there will be no compulsion to repay.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply, in particular for the reference to no compulsion. Can he confirm that in almost all the cases the errors were caused by the agencies concerned through no fault of the pensioner? As individuals and their families have to base their budgets on the total amounts expected, will special precautions now be taken against repetition of what must have been most unsettling mistakes?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I can concur with my noble friend that most of the mistakes were made at the official end. As he knows, we are introducing a computer system for war pensions and that has picked up these double payments. It will help prevent further overpayments of this kind. We are also reminding staff at the offices dealing with war pensions, disability living allowance and attendance allowance of the correct procedures to follow so that such mistakes are not made again.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we thank the Minister for his sensitive and generous response to the problem raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. Can we hope that the Government
480
will exhibit a similar generosity when the amendment of this House on war widows is discussed in the other place?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that is a clever way to introduce a subject which is a little wide of this Question.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Minister's great interest in ex-servicemen via the Royal British Legion is very much appreciated. If there should be difficulties with regard to this matter, will he be prepared to see representatives of the Royal British Legion?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we wrote to the various ex-servicemen's organisations when this problem came to light. I am happy of course to talk to them. Indeed, on Friday I am visiting a poppy factory in Edinburgh and meeting the chairman of the Royal British Legion (Scotland).
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say what is the total sum of money involved?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we estimate that the average overpayment is about £2,500. Bearing in mind that there are approximately 400 cases, the total sum comes to about £1 million.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, I am a member of the War Pensions Committee. Can he say why the computer was not able to identify the people who received this money, through no fault of their own, and why, therefore, the War Pensions Committee needed to advise them that they could not be forced to repay this sum? Why could they not have been asked for the money back?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question is that the computer system at Norcross and Blackpool is a new one. These discrepancies have come to light because of the bringing into use of the computer system away from the manual clerical systems which had been used before. On the noble Lord's second point, it is made perfectly clear to the person involved that there is no compulsion to repay. It is merely asking for voluntary repayment of any overpayment which was made.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it not the case, as the noble Lord admitted, that severely war disabled war pensioners have had pensions paid to them in a sense by mistake through official miscalculation of one form or another? Is it not therefore right that the Minister should say to the House and to others that the Government apologise for this mistake and that this was an error? Would it not be gracious for the noble Lord to do that?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thought I was trying to indicate that the great majority of the nearly 400 mistakes were due to official error. We do indeed regret that. I should point that that we pay war pensions and mobility supplement to more than 22,000 people and constant attendance allowance to

481
more than 6,000 people. That puts the figure of 400 in context. But we greatly regret that the mistake happened and we are trying to deal with it as sympathetically as we can.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, following on his answer to an earlier supplementary question, the Government's choice of computer systems seems to go astray every now and again? Is the Minister aware that in at least seven recorded instances so far the Government have suffered very great loss of finance either due to the computer systems themselves or to the advice that the Government have been tendered when those systems have been installed?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I believe I have indicated twice, these problems have come to light because we have moved from a clerical system to the new computer system at Norcross. I believe that it will give far better service than the old clerical method of dealing with these matters. I would not claim for a moment that computers are infallible, nor the human beings who work them—perhaps more the latter than the former. Almost everybody who knows anything about them realises that, once some of the initial problems which invariably occur with new computer systems are ironed out, they provide a very much better service whether in administration, science and technology or anything else.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, would the recipients have been aware that they had been overpaid by, on average, £2,500? If they were not aware, did they believe that their pensions had been miraculously increased? If they were aware that they had been overpaid, why should they not pay the money back?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is difficult to enter into the minds of the people who received these sums. Perhaps they thought that the Government were being even more generous than we are in these matters, or perhaps because these are complicated matters they probably just took the money and felt that that was the right way to proceed.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the Government have behaved with great probity and decency in this matter? Does he further agree that it is an increase in efficiency through the introduction of the computer system which has revealed these overpayments? The Government have a responsibility to seek to recover the money, but they are not trying to do so in cases where it cannot be afforded. Will my noble friend accept my congratulations on the finesse which the Government have shown in this matter?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am always happy to accept congratulations from any noble Lord, particularly from my noble friend. He is quite right that the introduction of computers is helping us in this matter. We are very conscious of the debt that we owe to war pensioners, and that is demonstrated
482
in the very much higher benefits that they receive in the mobility and care allowance than the rest of the population.

General National Vocational Qualifications
2.46 p.m.
Lord Quirk Lord Quirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent they are satisfied with progress in addressing the criticisms of General National Vocational Qualifications made in the OFSTED Report of October 1994.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the Government set out in March last year a clear plan of action for GNVQ improvement which has been strengthened in the light of the OFSTED report. NCVQ and the three GNVQ awarding bodies have been taking this work forward and we are pleased with the progress that has been made so far.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Is it not the case that it is the immense popularity and enthusiasm for the GNVQ's that makes us anxious that if the OFSTED criticisms are not vigorously and rapidly met the enthusiasm will turn to sour disillusion? Is the Minister not aware that the criticisms are addressed to all three of the relevant bodies—the schools, the awarding bodies and the National Council itself; that some of the criticisms were already raised in a report made a year earlier by OFSTED, and that some of these refer in fact to the division of responsibility between the awarding bodies and the National Council?
Lord Lucas: Yes, my Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord said. When the GNVQ system was introduced it was in many ways a very new system. We of course knew that it would turn out to have many faults. The question is how they should be dealt with. To our mind they have been dealt with extremely well. I believe that there is a common, and right, perception that a lot of the faults in the system have been shown up as overload on the teachers. The teachers have responded to that extraordinarily well, not least because I believe that they see how good the examinations are for their pupils and how much hope they offer for the future. But we clearly need to deal with these problems. We are bringing in a number of important changes in September and will doubtless follow them with others.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the criticisms made show the need for a review of the whole area of post-16 qualifications to ensure that courses for academic and vocational qualifications are equally well prepared and equally valued? Does he further agree that a unified qualification for post-16 year-olds is what is really needed?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, apart from the last part of the noble Baroness's question, I do not think that I would disagree with her at all. As she will be aware,

483
we have just announced such a review. The question of whether the qualification should be a unified one or a number of separate qualifications which are made coherent and properly linked is one on which we can have a long debate. But I believe that the option that we are pursuing of a coherent series of linked examinations is likely to prove much more flexible in covering a very wide range of requirements.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, is it the case that of the 160,000 who are currently registered for GNVQ only 2 or 3 per cent. have opted for the manufacturing option? If that is true, what explanation can the Minister offer? May I ask also whether it is the case that about half of the 160,000 who are currently registered for GNVQ are going for the advanced GNVQ and whether that is a sign that the advanced GNVQ is achieving that longed-for parity of esteem with the advanced level of GCE?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, to answer the second question first, yes. We believe that that parity of esteem is on the way to being achieved. Clearly, one needs a little bit of history and a little experience before one can say that it has actually been achieved, but we are confident that we are moving in the right direction. Perhaps I may characterise the manufacturing GNVQ as the runt of the litter: it has not done as well as the other qualifications. We are giving it particular attention and support. If I were to hazard a guess as to its problems, I think that it has been directed a little astray from where it should have been and therefore has not proved as attractive to industry and people interested in industry as should have been the case.
Baroness David: My Lords, following the Minister's earlier answer to the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, when he mentioned the "overload on teachers", what is being done to make the teachers' load less heavy in the light of what we know about the teachers' situation at the moment?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Baroness with the details, but it is very much involved with reducing the burdens of assessment and record-keeping and with ensuring that the whole system works to remove unnecessary bureaucratic overload.

Transport Research Laboratory
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will state their latest decisions with regard to the privatisation of the Transport Research Laboratory.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Secretary of State for Transport announced on 14th March 1995 his objectives for the sale of the Transport Research Laboratory, which he aims to complete during 1995. He will be seeking bids for the
484
laboratory from a wide range of interests. He also announced his decision to provide the laboratory with guarantees of future research work for a number of years, subject to the delivery of high quality, independent and impartial research at competitive prices.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: How can the Government justify giving guarantees of future research work for an indefinite period to a private buyer of the Transport Research Laboratory which they have refused to give to the TRL, their own acclaimed centre of excellence, as long as it remains in public hands? Does not that favouritism for private enterprise show that the Government are afraid to allow the public sector to compete on equal terms, as we found in the case of British Rail?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, no. I do not believe that it shows that at all. We believe in a strong Transport Research Laboratory, and we believe that the best future for that institution lies in the private sector, where it will be able to compete and enter new markets. The guarantees will not be indefinite, but because the Government account for a major share of the work commissioned from the TRL—some 85 per cent.—we feel that it is appropriate to give guarantees of future research work in order to transfer that organisation smoothly into the private sector.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in view of the fact that there has been no criticism of the performance of that organisation in the past, can the Minister now tell us the real reason that it is being sold off—other than political ideology?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is not a question of political ideology. The fact is that the Transport Research Laboratory has faced a loss of business. Given the fact that there has been a change and that rather than the laboratory's work being provider-led, departments are now customers, and in view of the fact that the Government's share has declined, we feel that if the research laboratory is to be able to compete properly, to enter new markets, to go for new business and to raise money in the way that it wants, its best future lies in the private sector. We strongly recognise the value to this country of having a strong TRL.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, but what proof does the Minister have that this is the right course to adopt if, once again, the Government are only guessing?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is not a question of guesswork. The TRL has lost business. That is the case. We recognise that it is a centre of excellence, but it is constrained by being in the public sector. It cannot, for instance, price its products in the way in which a commercial organisation can. It cannot provide loss-leading products—
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, why not?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as a public sector body, it has to reclaim its costs. Therefore, it cannot compete on an equal basis with what will be its

485
commercial competitors. We believe in a strong organisation. The private sector will be the best place for it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is it good commercial practice to get a good price for a saleable object by promising to pay a large income to the same seller?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that I have covered the reasons that we feel that the guarantees are necessary. The fact is that the Government commission some 85 per cent. of the work of the TRL. It is because the Government are by far and away the largest customer of the organisation that we believe that those guarantees are necessary in order for it to move smoothly into the private sector.
Lord Renton: My Lords, when the Government are requiring more work to be done by the TRL, can my noble friend say whether the criterion is to be the public need for such work or whether it will be done without cost?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend asks an interesting question. In the past, the Transport Research Laboratory conducted its research as a provider rather than at the customer's request. Now that government departments and others hold budgets for such research, it is demand-led. Departments decide what research they need and they then have the option to commission that research from TRL. The Transport Research Laboratory has a very good reputation as a centre of excellence, and I am sure that government departments will continue to commission research from that body.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could be a little clearer. First, he referred to the TRL benefiting from the fact that in the private sector it would not be required to reclaim its costs. That is what I inferred from the noble Viscount's comments, but it was a slightly confusing statement. Secondly, will the Minister confirm that it is possible for the Government, through deregulation, to allow a public sector body to compete in the open marketplace and that therefore privatisation is not necessarily the answer to such an organisation's inability to compete when that inability is due to government restrictions?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, no. I do not agree with the noble Baroness. However much one deregulates and moves such an agency towards an arm's length position, ultimately it is a public sector body and therefore cannot compete on the same terms as a commercial body with government money behind it. The noble Baroness was confused by my statement about the recovery of costs. A commercial organisation has complete leeway when deciding how to price its products. It might loss-lead, for example, and provide
486
services to its customers at a lower cost than they cost the organisation. That is not possible for a public body because a public body must recover its costs.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is it not surprising to hear noble Lords opposite suggest that the privatisation programme springs entirely from political dogma, with no suspicion on their part that their opposition to privatisation may spring from political dogma? Is not the proof of the pudding the fact that the very large sums which taxpayers shelled out in the past to support nationalised industries are now being almost exactly balanced by the very large sums paid by the same industries, which are now in profit, in taxes and back into the taxpayers' pockets?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend has hit the nail on the head. For some people, it is occasionally expedient to ignore the very great benefits which privatisation has brought to the country.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that we on this side of the House, not through dogma but for practical reasons, agree with the Select Committee in another place, which included four Conservative Members, which felt that it was wrong that this good and worthy organisation should be broken up? Will the Minister tell us how many serious applications there have been to take on the job of the TRL? Has it been emphasised that if any other body takes on the TRL, it must remain a transparently independent organisation? It is difficult for a purely commercial organisation not to have some tie-ups. The Minister should look at the record of the National Engineering Laboratory and the things that it had to do for outside bodies because it was the only totally impartial group. If there is a proposition from the existing workforce to take over the TRL on a non-profit making distributive basis, will he guarantee it the same amount of work as he has guaranteed to any private body which takes it over?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord two assurances. First, we have not ruled out any type of bid, such as the one he described by the management on a non-profit-making basis. We will of course consider that hid. The second assurance I can give the noble Lord is that the onus will be on bidders to demonstrate that they will be able to maintain independence and that it will be preserved under their ownership. We greatly value TRL's independence and the quality of the research product which it has put out.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, despite what the Minister has said, it is not entirely clear why, if the TRL is regarded as a centre of excellence and if the Government intend to continue to use its services, it should be put through the disruptive process of having to change its ownership.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, at the moment, being in the public sector, the TRL is constrained from competing in certain markets, from competing with its direct competitors, and from entering into all sorts of

487
new business, which I am sure it will be able to achieve once it is freed from those constraints and moves into the private sector.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Is it not a fact that as part of the lead-in to privatisation, the TRL was induced last year to shed over 100 of its scientific, technical and industrial staff at a cost in early retirement and severance pay of nearly £4 million? Is it not also a fact that it has now re-employed 30 of those people whom it sent off with a golden handshake and is advertising for 50 more? Is that not proof that the TRL was never overmanned and that its staff is needed to continue this centre of excellence?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the number of people working at the TRL has declined. Those are direct operational matters for the chief executive. He must be able to balance the work that comes in, the work that is required, and the orders that come in, against the number of people needed to produce that research product. To do otherwise would be highly irresponsible.

Sports (Discrimination) Bill [H.L.]
3.3 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make it unlawful for any administrative or rule-making body for a sport, or any affiliated club, to discriminate against persons who have participated, are participating or are expected to participate in any other lawful sport; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Earl of Swinton.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Swiss Constitutional System
3.4 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale rose to call attention to the Swiss Federation as a constitutional model; and to move for Papers.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, having been more fortunate in the Ballot than in the National Lottery, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Order Paper.
At the outset I should comment upon two words in the Motion. The first is "Federation". The reason is that Switzerland is often thought of as a confederation, because in a confederation many fewer powers are vouchsafed by the component states to the central authority, and in Switzerland a great degree of autonomy is left to the component states. The second reason is that Switzerland often refers to herself by the old name Confoederatio Helvetica. Hence the letters on Swiss motor vehicles which cause some confusion to foreigners.
In constitutional and international law Switzerland is undoubtedly a federation. One speaks with some diffidence on that matter in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, because his edition of The Federalist, with its masterly introduction, is a locus classicus. Nevertheless, there is no doubt—I do not go into it now—that Switzerland is a federation.
The second word I should mention is "model", because any constitution is of course the product of its history and geography—the Swiss as much as any. So there is no question of copying verbatim any element in the Swiss constitution. What it can do, and can do valuably, is to provide lessons to the world. The reason is that Switzerland is a stable, prosperous democracy in the face of—on the face of it—very considerable difficulties.
Switzerland has two major religions, and it is bordered by Catholic and Protestant states which have frequently fought one another, as indeed have the Catholic and Protestant cantons of Switzerland in the past. Switzerland comprises four different national languages: German (the majority); French (about a fifth); Italian and Romansh. Again, the first three are spoken by neighbouring states which have been belligerents in the past, and indeed have sought to enlarge their boundaries. So there is a lesson to be learnt.
Those conditions—a difference of religion and different languages—are mirrored all over the world. When one looks at any continent one finds them: the Caucasus, Kashmir, and the Balkans are but three examples. I propose to leave it to the two noble Lords who are to wind up, who can be relied upon to:
"Let observation with extensive view,
Survey mankind, from China to Peru".
I prefer, if your Lordships will allow it, to concentrate upon two problems which face us immediately; namely, Northern Ireland and the agenda for the second Maastricht conference.
In both cases, Switzerland has much to teach us, as will I think be clear from what I have said about the problems it faces. I am strongly a Unionist, but I am convinced that there must be power sharing in Northern Ireland, as there has been in Switzerland. As regards the agenda for the Inter-Governmental Conference, I strongly believe that we should be at the centre of Europe and doing all that we can to promote its cohesion. Again, Switzerland has lessons to teach.
I turn to what I regard to be the main characteristics of the Swiss constitution. They are, first, democracy; secondly, federalism; thirdly, subsidiarity; and, fourthly, neutrality. I do not believe that we have much to learn in the way of neutrality because it has never been our tradition and it is unlikely to be so. On the whole, our tradition has been to promote the concert of Europe and the balance of power.
As regards the other characteristics, federalism speaks for itself. It is a method of sharing power between component states, which may have considerable differences, and the central authority with more or less power—in the case of Switzerland, it is distinctly less—to conduct matters that are better dealt with centrally on a common basis. As I said, Switzerland as a federal

489
constitution leaves exceptional autonomy to its component parts, not only to the 26 cantons but to the more than 3,000 communes which have great autonomy too. Both cantons and communes have the power to raise their own income taxes.
So much for federalism; but subsidiarity is even more important because it is at the very essence of the Swiss constitution. One of the great achievements of the Prime Minister in his negotiating skill and tenacity at Maastricht was to have inscribed the principle of subsidiarity. In other words, no decision should be made by a decision-making body if it can be made by another decision-making body which is closer to the person affected by the decision. That appears to me to be most important wherever one looks in the world, in particular if one looks at Northern Ireland and the prospects of the Inter-Governmental Conference.
There is a large measure of subsidiarity in Switzerland but it is remarkable how little is spent by the central authority. In Switzerland, it is only 30 per cent. whereas even in the federal United States it is 59 per cent. and in this country it is 74 per cent. That shows how much power is retained by the component cantons. Moreover, it is a continuing process because in 1946 51 per cent. was the Government's share of the expenditure. By 1980 it had fallen to 31 per cent. The same picture is shown if one looks at the number of federal employees.
The third characteristic is democracy, because Switzerland is a profoundly democratic power. Democracy is shown by the test of not if but how far the bulk of the citizens of a country can influence the decisions which affect themselves, Switzerland has achieved high success in meeting that test. It has three kinds of democracy. Like ours, it is partly a representative democracy; it elects members to its parliament both on a cantonal and a total population basis. There are two Houses which exercise considerable power over legislation. Legislation is frequently overturned by one or other House, so much so that the central government tend to negotiate with the Houses before entering into legislation.
There again, we have a lesson to learn domestically because subsidiarity, like charity, begins at home. The popular House in Switzerland exercises considerably more autonomy than the House of Commons does in relation to the Government. The second chamber, the cantonal chamber, exercises considerably more authority than your Lordships venture themselves as regards government legislation.
When the Child Support Bill came before your Lordships' House it was analysed and criticised in a constructive way. However, we entirely failed to effect any amendment, which was to the great disadvantage of many of our citizens and, indeed, to the Government themselves. Such a thing would be quite unheard of in Switzerland and therefore I venture to suggest that there is a lesson that your Lordships' House should exercise more confidence in amending government legislation.
I have mentioned a democracy on a representative basis but Switzerland also has a system of direct democracy. In many of the communes the citizens
490
themselves vote on the proposals that are put before them. That was our system formerly in respect of town meetings and it could well be revived. Indeed, if we had greater subsidiarity and gave power to parish councils, the parish meeting could well be a method of popular direct democracy.
I can only mention summarily the two methods of semi-direct democracy that Switzerland has. One is an institutionalised referendum which can be demanded by a body of citizens. That is a highly conservative provision but it is counterbalanced by the popular initiative which is again proposed by a body of citizens. That is not peculiar to Switzerland. Many of the United States have that system to the great advantage, political scientists tell us, by way of countering maladministration and corruption.
I hope that the other important matters will be taken up by other speakers. I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, it is always both an honour and a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, not least because any speech which he delivers is an occasion for intellectual stimulus.
With all due respect to the authorities and, indeed, to President Mitterrand, who has recently been dabbling in that field, I doubt whether there is any real difference between a confederation and a federation. Indeed, I suspect that those terms originated in the American Civil War where the states of the south felt that they had to describe themselves as a confederation to distinguish themselves from the states of the north which described themselves as a federation, in just the same way as they chose to wear grey uniforms whereas the troops of the north wore dark blue uniforms.
The noble and learned Lord does a significant service in raising this matter in your Lordships' House. Indeed, the implications may be wider than he suggests or than the Government may realise.
As I have said before, the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this field rests upon Humpty Dumpty's dictum:
"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less'".
Unfortunately, if the other 14 members of the European Union, as well as virtually every other country in the world, uses the word to mean something entirely different, it is not surprising that confusion abounds and that Johnny, the only man in the regiment who is in step, is sometimes regarded as a member of the awkward squad.
It is a real tragedy if what may be shared objectives are thwarted by differences in language and expression. We need to bear in mind continually that the purpose of language is the communication of knowledge and ideas and not merely the expression of abuse. That is particularly important in the present context, not least because the federal model is infinitely variable both in form and in content.

491
The implications go very much wider and deeper than mere policy towards the European Union. We have a Union of our own. It is the Union of the three Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Wales and the Province of Northern Ireland. That Union is an extreme example of the centralised super-state so often, but wrongly, attributed to Brussels. But more important, it is crumbling before our eyes because the Scots do not like being governed by an English Government at Westminster. That is an essential lesson to be drawn from the Scottish local elections. The only possible counter argument is if the Government do even worse in the English elections than they did in Scotland. I doubt very much whether, even in their wildest moments, the Government would hope to refute the argument in that way.
But if further proof were needed, one has to look only at the attempts of the BBC—an English institution with its headquarters close to Carnaby Street and with a philosophy to match—to interfere in the Scottish electoral process and the retribution which it suffered as a result. We see also the growing evidence of national awakening in Wales. Only last year your Lordships passed the Welsh Language Act.
The only conceivable way in which the Union can be saved in the long term—and I regard it as essential that the Union should be saved—is if it developed not by accident but consciously into a Union of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Wales; no longer the United Kingdom but the United Kingdoms. That is a federal solution of the kind which has been adopted successfully in the United States, Canada, Australia, Germany, Belgium, and of course, as the noble and learned Lord has just said, in Switzerland. That is the only way in which the gulf between peoples of different cultures, national traditions and even different languages and laws can he bridged. It is the only way in which the growing gulf between governments and the people can be bridged.
That brings one to Northern Ireland, which has also been raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The only conceivable solution to the Irish problem, which is not only a problem of Northern Ireland but a problem of Southern Ireland, is that there will be either a federation of Northern Ireland with the United Kingdoms—and I deliberately say United Kingdoms and not United Kingdom—or a federation of Northern Ireland with the Irish Republic. What a tragedy it would be if the solution to both those problems of paramount constitutional importance in this country—that is, the problems of the relationships between England, Scotland and Wales and the problem of Northern Ireland—were to be thwarted by mistaken rhetoric based upon imperfect knowledge and reflecting little more than internecine political warfare.
I only hope that this debate, initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, will provide the Government with the opportunity to put aside their
492
preoccupations with Alice in Wonderland or, more accurately, Alice through the Looking Glass, and come at last to terms with the real world.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I too express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for introducing this subject. When I attended this House originally I noticed on the all-party Whip that there was an Anglo-Swiss parliamentary group. I went along the corridor to find out about it, thinking that we might discuss the Swiss constitution, in which I have an interest. I found that all that the group discussed was the preparation for next year's skiing competition between Swiss and British Parliamentarians. Therefore, I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord has won the ballot for this interesting debate.
I should declare an interest. Half of my family live in Switzerland. I have only one complaint about that; namely, that one of my grandchildren tells me that she lost marks in a recent examination because she spoke English with a Scottish accent. However, the trouble with Switzerland—which we all admire because it is such a beautiful country—is that unfortunately nowadays it is almost too expensive to visit. With the Swiss franc conversion rate now standing at 1.7 to the pound, it is financially difficult for us to enjoy all the beauty and the amenities of that country.
The question that has been raised this afternoon is: what can we learn from Switzerland? It has been instructive to learn a little about the weight and authority which are given to the various constitutional arrangements—the federal government at the centre, the cantons and the communities. There is a great deal to be learnt from the particular weighting of those organisations. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, quite rightly pointed out that some of the tensions that arise in the United Kingdom could be avoided if greater attention was given to the decentralisation which is inherent in the Swiss constitution.
In the local authority elections two weeks ago the Conservative Party managed to get 11 per cent. of the votes of the people of Scotland—I repeat, 11 per cent. That means that 89 per cent. of the people in Scotland are living under a regime which they resent and which they oppose. That cannot be a long-term arrangement which is sustainable. One cannot possibly have that kind of imbalance because Scotland regards itself as a nation.
If one looks at the cantons in Switzerland, which also have tax-raising powers and considerable powers inherent in their constitution, it will be seen that the Scottish problem—and, indeed, now the increasing Welsh tension—could not possibly arise if we gave greater attention to the danger of centralisation. Over the past few years there has been a substantial loss of power and authority at local level in this country. Local government functions have frequently been replaced by the appointment of quangos which are not at all responsible in any democratic sense. Therefore, the lesson pointed out by the noble Lord this afternoon regarding the importance of decentralisation to make democracy a living reality is important for us.

493
The absence of tensions in Swiss politics is due to a number of reasons. There has been a greater consensus in politics in general in that country. It has been ruled by a coalition government which probably commands 80 per cent. of the total votes in Switzerland, That makes for very smooth government: negotiation and consensus are the rule. But, at the same time, it also leads to a degree of conservatism and to a certain cosiness in the relationships of parties.
Those noble Lords who know Swiss history will recall that one of the great men of Switzerland in recent times was a Mr. Duttweiler who built the most successful retail chain in that country; namely, MIGROS. It will be recalled that, when he asked for permission to open shops in the country, the co-operatives and the private shopkeepers got together and decided that no licences should be provided. That was a very cosy arrangement to avoid competition. Mr. Duttweiler dramatically illustrated his disgust by actually throwing a brick through the window of the Swiss Parliament building. That is somewhat unheard of in the kind of environment in which Swiss politics are conducted.
Reference has been made to the importance of a referendum. There is no doubt that a referendum seems to have a kind of restraining influence on legislation and sometimes has dramatic effects. It represents grass-roots democracy in a very real sense. I shall mention one or two of the recent instances of the operation of the referendum. Enough signatures were gathered in Switzerland for a referendum to take place on the abolition of the Swiss Army. Despite the fact that Switzerland has observed neutrality, the Swiss are rather proud of their army. However, the case was put to a referendum of the people and 70 per cent. of the electors voted on the question of the abolition of the Swiss Army. In fact, the majority was 64 per cent. That was a sufficiently alarming vote against the continuance of the Swiss Army for the government to take heed of it and decide that the Swiss Army would be reduced by one-third by 1985. There is no doubt about that. It is an example of democracy at work.
There have been one or two referenda in that country. In a recent referendum the Swiss electorate decided that, in order to protect the beauty of the Swiss Alps, they would prevent the movement of freight by road across Switzerland—something very important to a country in the centre of Europe—and that, by the year 2000, freight would be carried by rail and not by road so as to protect the amenities of the Alps. That was not done because of a decision taken by the government at the centre; it was done because of a decision taken by the people when voting in a referendum.
The one occasion where the referendum worked, I believe, to the disadvantage of Switzerland—and, certainly to my disappointment—was when a vote was taken on membership of the European Community. But at least the Swiss decided by common consent that they would not join the European Community; indeed, a vote was held. When one considers the fact that Switzerland depends on its international trade—it is a small country with very few minerals—on its ability to export and on
494
its ability to survive by way of high-tech industry, that was quite a remarkable decision. The banks and the Swiss Government supported membership of the European Community, but the people turned it down. That was perhaps unfortunate from a British point of view, because I am sure that Switzerland would have joined us in championing the cause of subsidiarity, which is built into their own constitution. The Swiss would have been a natural ally for us in achieving the degree of subsidiarity which most of us desire.
The other issue which creates a degree of tension is the large number of asylum-seekers in Switzerland. Switzerland is a beautiful country with the highest GNP per person in the world, and so it has 100,000 asylum-seekers. The Swiss people took a vote on limiting the number of new immigrants and the voters decided in favour of it. However, there is a new Right Wing party in Switzerland called the Automobile Party which was originally established to defend the rights of the owners of the motor car. However, it has now developed into an extreme Right Wing anti-immigration party. When it put forward the proposal for a further, more drastic, reduction in the number of asylum-seekers, the very people who decided that there should be some restriction turned down the proposal of the extreme Right Wing. So there is a degree of good sense around. Decisions are being made in the various referenda which reflect very creditably on the democratic idea.
Switzerland is essentially a conservative country and things change there rather more gradually than in some other countries. I would have thought that the attitude of the Swiss Government and the Swiss constitution to women, for example, is unfortunate. It is only now that a second woman has been appointed, after a great deal of hassle in the coalition, to the federal government office. Switzerland runs on the basis of a coalition and it was the turn of the socialists to nominate someone to a government office. The social democrats, who were really to the Right Wing of Tony Blair, put up a woman candidate but the male dominated assembly decided not to have a woman. It was only when there was a threat to the continuation of the coalition that a woman was appointed. In some areas Switzerland and its constitution has not caught up with the ideas that are consistent with a democratic society.
We can learn a great deal from Switzerland, particularly in the field of decentralisation. As I said at the beginning, we have moved more and more into centralised government in this country. It is high time that we looked at our own constitution as regards decentralisation, the spread of democratic control and the right of people to become involved in major decision-making, which is inherent in the Swiss constitution.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, deserves our thanks for introducing a subject on which almost anything can be said with relevance. We have already heard discussion on the European Union, on Scotland's grievances, and no doubt in the course of this short debate other topics

495
will he raised. But it is, alas, only a peg because, seriously, there is no possibility of Switzerland, admirable country though it is, offering a model anywhere. Its history is so idiosyncratic; its formation over a period of 700 years fraught with so many ups and downs, both political, constitutional and religious, that there is nothing quite like it—or could he anything quite like it—on the face of the globe.
I shall discuss only one or two of the points which the noble and learned Lord made. He talked about the fact that two major religious denominations divide the country and that this still—at least nowadays—does not lead to the kind of violence and difficulties which we observe elsewhere. He might have added a third—the powerful force of anti-religious, secularist sentiment which was at the formation of some of the political movements in Switzerland in the middle of the last century.
But the main point, perhaps, is that in Switzerland, unlike in other places where religions confront each other, their adherents are not also members of particular linguistic or ethnic groups. There are French-speaking Protestants and French-speaking Catholics and there are German-speaking Protestants and German-speaking Catholics. Therefore the kind of clash which may occur in other parts of the world does not occur there. To compare the situation there in any respect with the situation in Northern Ireland seems to me so far-fetched as to be out of court.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, suggested that the European Union—it may not long survive—could be modelled on Switzerland. That, again, is enormously far-fetched because what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, did not add to his list of Swiss virtues was a sense of Swiss nationhood. Switzerland is a nation. The cantons may differ; they may have greater powers than is common with subordinate units of government in many other countries, and indeed in some other federations. As the noble and learned Lord said, they have differences in religion and in language. They differ, of course, in having two or three cities of major importance and also in having isolated rural communes which for part of the year have more or less to subsist on their own.
Every kind of division exists in Switzerland but for some curious reason—perhaps because for nearly 700 years it was confronted with the possibility of hostile invasions (after all, it is only a mere two centuries since it was overrun by the armies of Napoleon)—and perhaps for the reason I have just mentioned, they have an extraordinary degree of feeling as regards being Swiss. If Europeans felt about Europe the way Swiss feel about Switzerland, then indeed there might be something of a model in their constitution.
It is also, of course, true that in some respects Switzerland is—as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said—a little peculiar, not sharing in all the fashions which have predominated in the politics and Political discourse of other western countries. But, again, there is a reason for that. I refer to the referendum on the Swiss Army at a time of relative peace in Europe. Switzerland is a country in which its citizens have first and foremost been armed; that is to say, civilians have
496
been trained to defend their country. That is the backbone of the Swiss military set-up. It would have been curious if the franchise had early on been allotted to women who in those enlightened days were not expected to bear arms.
Usually there is an explanation for the actions that are taken. There is also, I think, a further important fact. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, made an extraordinary request from a former commissioner when he asked us to observe reality. Switzerland has had an unusual set of economic circumstances because apart from water power, which was not effective until the previous century, it does not have much in the way of natural resources. It has had an extraordinary capacity for making do without them; in earlier centuries by selling cuckoo clocks and—perhaps this was more important economically—by supplying mercenary soldiers to parts of Europe, of which the Papal Guard in the Vatican is now the last symbolic element. In more recent times Switzerland has developed a banking system from which it derives enormous profit, though perhaps some other countries may feel that it also provides opportunities for less than palatable accounts to he secreted away.
I turn now to the Swiss decision on where they stand in relation to Europe, which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, mentioned. I speak subject to correction, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, but it is my belief that the Swiss were never asked whether they wished to join the European Community or the European Union. They were merely asked whether they wished to join the outer ring, the free trade area which now unites other countries which are possible future members of the European Union. The Swiss declined, primarily because there would be no obvious advantage to Switzerland. The present advantages in trade exist because of Switzerland's geographical location and the skill of both its financial and some of its industrial institutions.
Membership of the European Union could not be combined with neutrality. Swiss neutrality is an important international asset. It would have been highly damaging to the rest of the world if Switzerland had abandoned it. After all, it is the fact that Switzerland is and is known to be a permanent neutral which makes possible the activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross, to which so many people in so many countries owe so much. If Switzerland were part of the European Union, which is not and cannot of its nature be a permanent neutral because who knows what its common foreign policy may produce in the way of enemies, the situation would have been quite different.
Switzerland is a country which one is entitled to admire. Having been to school there and visited it to ski, like the family of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I have enormous admiration for Switzerland. However, we must not think that it is perfect, because no country is perfect. Nor can it possibly provide a model.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that Switzerland is a federation. There is no possible definition of a federation which would not include Switzerland. There is division of powers between the centre and the cantons. It is possible to be

497
a federation because at the same time it is a nation. As noble Lords know, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, that there is any confusion about the meaning of the word "federal". That is a suggestion which is put up when we say that the United Kingdom could not be part of a federation. We understand what it means. Those who talk about a united states of Europe—a federal Europe—also understand what it means. On the other hand, the word "subsidiarity", which I do not recollect the Swiss using when making their constitution, is a piece of unnecessary jargon which adds nothing whatever to the notion of federalism. It is simply another way of saying how powers could be distributed.
It is therefore important that we should sympathise with the idea that something as remote in Europe's experience as the experience of Switzerland should be considered. But each time we probe we will find that the differences from any other arrangement anywhere in the world are much greater than the similarities.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, touched on a matter which is very relevant to some of the current problems of the European Union; namely, the Swiss attitude towards immigration. That has always been a problem. The Swiss have never wished to extend their territories. The original three cantons came to be 26 by a process of accretion, not of conquest. They have also been aware that making people Swiss would be a long and difficult process. In recent years they may not altogether have been the best employers of temporary residents working in Swiss industry or commerce. The Swiss have had to be harsh to the outside world in order to preserve their distinctive national consciousness, That was noticeable at the time when there was the Nazi regime on one side of the country and a fascist regime on the other.
The acquaintance of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, with Switzerland, is closer than mine today. It looks as though in some respects the Swiss have not been able to stand against some of the less pleasant elements of our contemporary world—youth culture, drug culture and all that goes with those. Zurich is not the haven of peace and respectability that it was when Lenin lived there. Even so, Switzerland is a great country. I am glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, asked us to think about it. Let us think about it and then proceed to business.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I begin by apologising to the House because I fear that I shall have to leave before the end of the debate. I have already apologised to the Minister. I shall stay, I hope, until the very moment when he rises to his feet, but I shall have to leave at 5 o'clock. I apologise.
Much to my surprise, I agreed with something that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said in his, as always, learned and witty remarks. I agree with him very much that this is a fine debate which offers us a pretext to talk about something which matters to us—our constitutional arrangements. I did not agree with the noble Lord that Switzerland is a far-fetched country from which we can
498
learn very little in constitutional terms. I do not agree because I believe that in this country we now have a constitutional problem—some would say a constitutional crisis. We need to learn, from whatever source and inspiration, how to govern ourselves better.
On three crucial axes the British constitution is creaking: the relationship between the state and the citizen; the relationship between the centre and the locality; and the relationship between the three traditional arms of government—the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary.
One reason the British state and the British system are creaking is that we are now the most centralised unitary state in Europe since Napoleonic France. We have gathered power to the centre in the most extraordinary way. A whole series of constitutional problems is now coming together in a major constitutional issue. I shall mention one or two of those problems.
First, there is the problem which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, so wisely identified some years ago when the Conservative Party was in opposition as an "elective dictatorship"; namely, the lack of any formal restraint on the powers of government.
Secondly, there is the question of citizen participation and the distance between government and parties and the people of this country. Thirdly, there is the question of local autonomy and the weakening we have seen in the powers and respect that exist for local government in London. That issue comes to a head with the problem of Scotland and Wales. Like several noble Lords who have spoken—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and the noble Lords, Lord Cockfield and Lord Taylor of Gryfe—I am a unionist. I wish the union to be maintained, but an intelligent unionist must be a devolutionist. It is no good saying of nations like Scotland and Wales, with their own strong traditions, that they must be administered as though they were provinces of imperial London. Then there is the question of the need to create a new sense of legitimacy in our whole political system.
All those questions come together in the constitutional crisis which I mentioned a moment ago. It is now being put into the pressure cooker of what our future relationships will be with the European Union and what shape the European Union itself is to have. The IGC is approaching and so far the British Government have been conspicuous by not bringing forward proposals for the future governance of Europe, which stop a long way short of a united states of Europe, a long way short of the notion that has, quite rightly, been attacked, but do not go far enough towards the sharing and layering of power in a way that reflects the wishes of the citizens of Europe.
I do not think that it is necessary to embrace the idea of constitutional imitation; to embrace the idea that in some way Switzerland is a model. I do not believe that it is for us. It comes from a different culture and history from ours. But we do not have to embrace that idea to be open to the possibility that we can learn something from Switzerland. It is probably right that successful institutions—whether companies or governments—are

499
learning institutions. They learn from experience and observation. If we observe Switzerland, it has several features of great interest to British politics, some of which noble Lords have mentioned and others which have not been mentioned. First, there is the issue of decentralisation. The Swiss confederation is almost a model of a decentralised state. It demonstrates powerfully that political power can be delegated to local assemblies without any of the chaos, waste and inefficiency which are routinely forecast in this country by people who oppose further decentralisation and devolution. The Swiss model shows that a highly decentralised state can he prosperous. It shows that responsible citizens who are encouraged to participate democratically, at a variety of different levels, can do so. Therefore, it has produced a participatory democracy rather than what at times I fear we are becoming in this country—a nation of cynics, united only in our distaste for what happens in Whitehall and Westminster. Switzerland is a state in which political power derives from the citizens and the local communities where it originates at the apex of the political triangle and is passed upwards. So delegation is upwards rather than downwards from the centre.
Secondly, Switzerland exemplifies very well a greater wish to spread participation than this country. The Swiss confederation demonstrates that a strong state need have no fear of the proper and judicious use of the referendum. It can form part of a mature democracy. As many noble Lords know, proposed legislation can stem from the Federal Council, from members of parliament, from the cantons or—as I believe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said—by a people's initiative with the signatures of 100,000 enfranchised citizens.
I maintain that over the past century in Switzerland it is undeniable that the instruments of direct democracy have, on the whole, had positive effects. In a time of social fragmentation, it has provided a sure means of enlisting the involvement and co-operation of different ethnic groups. It is hard to think of other countries that have done as well in achieving the participation of ordinary citizens in the running of the nation's social, political and economic life.
Thirdly, noble Lords would expect me from these Benches to refer to another feature of the Swiss constitution: the use of proportional representation. The Swiss confederation uses proportional representation extremely effectively. It shows that many of the arguments used by opponents of proportional representation in this country are erroneous because coalition government in Switzerland has, on the whole, been strong, stable, and popular. Proportional representation has meant that every Swiss citizen has felt that he or she is represented in the deliberations of the nation, whereas in this country, as noble Lords know, a majority of people do not get either the Member of Parliament or the government that they want. In Switzerland, everyone can feel that he has a stake in the legislature that ensues after an election. So we have something to learn from Switzerland; some lessons are applicable.
500
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, mentioned Northern Ireland; also referred to by other noble Lords. As spokesman from these Benches with responsibility for Northern Ireland, I congratulate the Government wholeheartedly on the achievement represented by the framework document. One of the most striking features about that document is, first, that it recommends an assembly elected in Northern Ireland by proportional representation. Secondly, it recommends a devolved assembly. Thirdly, it recommends an assembly in which there should be power sharing between communities in Northern Ireland. Fourthly, it recommends that there should be a Bill of Rights, or charter of rights, for the people of Northern Ireland.
I say to the Minister that a great many British citizens will find it difficult to determine why those good, constitutional innovations are to be granted to the people of Northern Ireland and not to the rest of the United Kingdom where they would be just as applicable and helpful in strengthening our democracy.
I wish to say a final word on the future of the European Union and the impending IGC. It is good to hear the "f" word—federalism—coming out and being discussed in a rational way in your Lordships' House instead of in the vein of vulgar misrepresentative populism in which Her Majesty's Government have so far described it. All those who dislike the prospect—as I certainly do—of a European superstate should be supporters of federalism. That is the way to share power, to layer power, to create a system of power that is bottom up and starts with the citizen. It is the way to retain strong traditions, strong nationalities within a framework of pooled sovereignty for the greater good.
I conclude by urging that the Government do not approach either this discussion or the next election in a spirit of constitutional complacency that they alone defend our ancient institution. What we have to defend is the prospect of a real, thriving democracy in this country. To achieve that we shall need reform; for that reform we should be informed by debates such as this debate today.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I return to the happy subject raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, of the Swiss confederation. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, would approve that I declare several interests. The first is possibly not a happy one, since one of my early visits to Switzerland resulted in the termination of my National Service through a triple fracture of the leg, two years in hospital—six months in a Swiss hospital—and various other allied and associated consequences.
On the other hand, perhaps a beneficial side to the interests that I should declare is that for 22 years consecutively, as a Member of your Lordships' House, I have been a loyal and I hope sturdy member of the Anglo-Swiss Parliamentary Group so beloved of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. Among many other benefits, that gave me at least one week of meeting, talking to and skiing with other Swiss parliamentarians in Davos in eastern Switzerland, well known to many noble Lords.

501
I declare the interest that I have experienced much hospitality, kindness and sporting rivalry. Above all, declare my interest in learning with—and this is important for the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and myself as Scots—free language tuition while both skiing and travelling in Switzerland. Therefore, it is a worthwhile experience to look at the Swiss federal constitution—as expressed in the Latin Confederatio Helvetica.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, who introduced the debate, mentioned the four languages spoken in Switzerland. I obtained free lessons in three of them: French, which is spoken by nearly 19 per cent. of the population; German, spoken by approximately 65 per cent. of the population; and Italian, spoken by a mere 10 per cent. of the population. Those noble Lords with a mathematical bent will find that those figures add up to 94 per cent. There is also the language of Romansh, which accounts for 0.8 per cent. I obtained those figures from the Swiss Embassy this morning.
It seems to me that perhaps the remaining almost 6 per cent. might be English-speaking, with or without whatever accent they choose to put on that English. So perhaps the fifth language used in Switzerland is English, which most of the population seem to speak.
Forty years ago, during my schooldays, in an attempt to learn German, I spent a whole summer struggling through Friedrich Schiller's story of William Tell. Four years ago, the story of William Tell came alive. It may be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that on 1st August 1991 I happened to be in Switzerland celebrating the founding of Switzerland, 700 years ago to the day—the three cantons of the Rütli Rock where the oath was taken. That day and for a Scot—especially with regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, had to say—everything was free: ski lifts, food, drink and company. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, does not have to wait another 700 years for such a time. Certainly, what I learned and continued to learn throughout my experiences in Switzerland was something of the political system of Switzerland and those who participate in it. It is an enormous achievement that they have put together over 700 years.
I wonder why that has come about. Your Lordships might have their own opinion. I am sure that when my noble friend comes to wind up the debate he will have his opinion and we shall no doubt have an opinion from the Government. But why is it that 6.5 million sturdy, independent, influential and above all quietly and discreetly proud souls in Switzerland have shown such a tremendous achievement in the middle of Europe? I wonder how they have done it.
Perhaps one could just glance at the first three articles from the purposes of the federal constitution. First, the federal constitution declares and asserts the independence of the fatherland from the outside world. Secondly, it seeks the maintenance of law and order throughout the country. Thirdly, it protects the freedom and the rights of citizens and promotes their common welfare. Those rights are asserted through both the federal system and the cantonal or community structure.
502
Switzerland is the perfect model of a federal government. Where is that replicated? Right here in your Lordships' House. The Swiss Parliament meets from 12 to 16 weeks a year, and one of the features that unites your Lordships' House with the federal parliament is that its members are not paid. They receive only expenses. Perhaps that is one example of where Switzerland goes and your Lordships follow; or it might be the other way round.
The federal government have responsibilities in clearly defined areas: foreign affairs, customs, telecommunications and post, and, above all, defence. That is the Swiss Government as carried out by the federal council. I wonder whether we can learn from it. We can see, when we look around your Lordships' House, say, at Question Time, and the other place, that there is a limitless number of participants in government. But in Switzerland there are just seven. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred to the second woman federal councillor, Councillor Dreifuss, who is a member of that council. The composition of the Swiss Federal Council has evolved to two plus two, plus two, plus one members: two radicals, two social democrats, two christian democrats and one from the Swiss People's Party. The structure is determined on a party basis and on a cantonal basis. As it has evolved, much of it goes a long way towards confirming the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Holme.
As a Scot, I think of government as seeking to open my wallet or bank account and extract funds from it. How is that done in Switzerland? The tax sovereignty of the community or canton is sacrosanct. But in the community or commune—the canton—there are defined powers for education and the usual services that are found in our local authority, unitary or secondary tier, as we have it even in Scotland. I believe that that is subsidiarity in practice.
But how and why does that conventional and perhaps even dull system work? Perhaps I may give your Lordships one idiosyncratic view. It centres around a wicked, five-letter word called "pride". I mentioned that the federal government have responsibility for the army. Indeed, the noble Lords, Lord Taylor or Lord Holme, or perhaps it was my noble friend Lord Beloff, referred to the citizens' army of Switzerland. On Saturday mornings in Switzerland one can hardly get on a train, even though extra trains are run, without seeing everywhere field grey uniforms. That is the citizens' army at training. The soldiers train on a federal basis. They mingle and meet with others from all over Switzerland and they earn great respect. That might be one aspect of how and why the Swiss confederation works with what I believe to be no small measure of success.
A unique aspect of Switzerland is its geography. There are the Alps. According to figures that I obtained from the Swiss Embassy this morning, 25 per cent. of Switzerland's land area is either unproductive or uncultivated. It has no natural resources. But what Switzerland does have is an enormous history of trade, manufacture and, latterly, banking, finance and insurance. The Swiss Information Centre sent me some information on the Swiss economy and—no doubt with

503
great Scottish ability—referred to the nation as being prosperous and industrial. Figures from 1975 showed average per annum income of each person in Switzerland to have been 19,000 Swiss francs. In 1987 it was 34,000 Swiss francs. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will be able to do a swift calculation on what he obtained at the currency exchange last week. That is some measure of how the Swiss, with their political system, have managed their life and their economy.
Money does not solve or settle everything. The noble and learned Lord who introduced the debate referred to public spending. I understand that Swiss Government figures last year showed that public spending was 25 per cent. of gross domestic product and the rate of all taxes averaged all over Switzerland was approximately 28 per cent.
I have mentioned both the economy and the geography of Switzerland. I conclude by referring to one particular aspect which might put a brake on the perhaps perfect, rather twee image that some of us may have. Perhaps I have given such an image to your Lordships this afternoon. It is allied to the geography of Switzerland and deals with transport. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, mentioned the "happy referenda". He may care to cast his mind back to last year when a referendum took place. One of the subjects for voting was something called the Alpen Initiative. That would ban heavy lorries from crossing Switzerland in the year 2000. That referendum was carried against the strong wish of the Swiss Government and the Swiss Federal Council, let alone the Swiss transport Minister.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, was far too tactful about the results of the referendum, and I really wonder whether the noble Lord delved too deeply beyond the confines of his family in Basle, because the official programme that the Swiss are proposing to alleviate this problem of the transit of freight from north to south under the Alps is Neve Eisenbahn Alpine Transit, or NEAT, a happy little acronym. That apparently is supposed to be costing 15 billion francs of federal funding. The original plan was to have two tunnels under the Alps: one to be open in 2005 and the other in, I think, 2015. This is under considerable political discussion and undergoing considerable political risk as we speak. Indeed all this was raised because of the problem of heavy goods vehicles transiting through Switzerland where there is a weight limit of 28-tonne lorries. For the rest of the Community, as your Lordships will know, it is 44 tonnes. So to alleviate this problem the Swiss said, "Right, we had better try to drill two tunnels dedicated to trucks to go under the Alps".
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, may have heard of the NEAT system. Whenever I speak about it I suffer from the "polecat syndrome" in that my friends fall silent, if indeed they do not scatter. I am grateful for all the thoughts that were expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, because that makes two of us. But probably if he and I were to go to Switzerland we might find that we are the only two giving unqualified support to this particular concept.
504
I wonder whether this great political discussion, which is shaking the foundations of the Swiss federal tax system and causing considerable concern, although it may be discreetly concealed, in the Swiss Parliament, is necessarily terrible. Is this problem one of geography, economics, strategy or 20th century afflictions, be they 44-tonne lorries, pollution or trade, and is it insuperable? I do not think that it is insuperable. I hope that my Swiss friends and your Lordships will forgive a Scot for intervening in this debate. I believe that the Swiss, with their political traditions and their politics which have evolved over 700 years, will solve their problems. There are one or two aspects of what Switzerland is discussing now that can and probably will help us in the next 20 years.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, we must be very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for raising this topic which has been, as I expected, extremely fruitful. Very good points have been made by many of your Lordships. I remember a story about Evelyn Waugh. Asked by a journalist how he would vote at the next general election, he said:
"I do not aspire to advise my Sovereign in her choice of servants".
To which the late James Cameron, the journalist, replied:
"I aspire: I aspire like anything."
James Cameron, of course, would have been more an admirer of Tom Paine than of Edmund Burke. He probably fancied that politicians were his servants rather than those of Her Majesty. The Swiss certainly take that view. And that is, I think, the basic reason why they are of such perennial interest to the rest of us. They have come the nearest in modern times to achieving a real direct democracy. This is shown in three ways. First, there is the variety of opinions represented in Parliament. The Swiss, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, pointed out, are an outstanding advertisement for proportional representation. The system may have certain disadvantages, but in Switzerland it works extremely well. It causes a great variety of opinions to be represented and spoken of in Parliament.
Reference has been made to the motorists' party: it may well be that the motorists' party is not quite all that it seems. However, I think the idea of a motorists' party having eight Members of Parliament is worth all the "cone hotlines" that one can imagine. It really is an advertisement for the Swiss system.
Secondly, there is the fact that the Swiss govern themselves in small units. Most matters are dealt with either by cantons or by communes. There are 26 cantons: that means an average population of 300,000. Many have a very much lower population than that. They deal with many matters we regard as belonging completely to central government, including tax. There was a tax expert, I understand, who married a Swiss lady. "What does he see in her?" someone asked. "Oh, he did not marry her for herself but for her cantonal residence."

505
Thirdly, the Swiss system of referenda means that 100,000 people can sign a petition and cause a national referendum to be called which can go against the views of the great and the good. That is extremely important. It is a marvellous way of keeping in order those parliamentarians who take too literally their status as representatives rather than delegates. They have lots of referenda in Switzerland. All visitors to that country will have seen the notices, some new and some half torn, advising "Ja" or "Oui" or their opposites. A referendum can deal with anything from the voting age to shopping hours.
Two recent national referenda have been mentioned. One was to keep Switzerland out of the European single market; the other was to keep heavy lorries off Alpine roads. Both proposals were enacted, to the fury of the talking classes and the great and the good. That is extremely salutary. There was also a referendum to abolish the Swiss army. Such activity keeps rulers up to the mark. If we had more referenda in our country I think we should be far better off.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is right. There are ways in which the Swiss model simply would not work here. The United Kingdom would not conveniently divide into 26 small cantons. The nation of Scotland numbers 6 or 7 million. It is a large and proud nation, with a particular tradition. It cannot be compared to, say, the canton of Schwyz. Wales is the same. We do not divide up in quite that way. Nevertheless, the fact that the referendum system is so successful in Switzerland could well be a lesson to us. Modern technology could render the system very much more simple. I have a pipedream. It is that every household should have a computer terminal and that every voter, identified perhaps by his handprint, could press the button of his choice. I hope that our political servants would not be too reluctant to install an arrangement that would keep them, as the Swiss keep theirs, most efficiently in order.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, whenever the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, rises to address your Lordships we are assured of what the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, called intellectual stimulation. Again, today, we have heard evidence of the originality of his thinking and in the course of the debate, if I may say so, we have responded.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, chided us a little on the relevance of some of the things said about the declared subject matter of the Motion. He pointed out that in many respects Switzerland is unique. Are we not all, in our various ways? Perhaps, fortunately, none of us is a complete model for anyone else. What this debate has enabled us to do is to discuss the merits of the federal type of government and the range of options it offers. Perhaps the most important lesson laid bare in the debate is the extent to which our generation is hypnotised by the concept of the nation state or, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said, the centralised nation state. The first article in our credo is that all power resides in the nation station, except in so far as it decides to delegate specific powers upwards or downwards. It
506
may release such powers downwards on such conditions and for such time as it chooses to regional or local government. But, as local government in this country has discovered to its cost over the past few years, those powers are held at the unpredictable pleasure of the national government.
That is not how the matter developed historically. In this country, local government preceded national government. The shire moots and the hundreds moots did not consider their powers to he held by the leave and licence of the national government. Specifically in this country, I believe, the thinking has been confined by the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament. It was intended by writers like Dicey to refer primarily to the relationship between the legislature on the one hand and the executive and the judiciary on the other. In that respect it has exercised an important and invaluable influence. But when any attempt is made to extend it to a quite separate subject—discussion about the most convenient size of political unit for particular purposes and the level at which decisions can most suitably he taken—it imposes a straitjacket on our thinking. From my own experience in Northern Ireland I welcome what the noble and learned Lord and other noble Lords have said about its possibilities there. I utter only one caution. Federalism is not the answer to every problem. Of course, if there were a federation in Ireland, the northern constituent would still contain a substantial minority. It would not be a substitute for a Bill of Rights.
Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, and my noble friend Lord Taylor, spoke of Scotland where questions of roads and social policy are decided by a government that the Scots have not chosen and did not want.
One turns in the other direction to the release of power upwards. Nation states are seen as delegating specific powers to the United Nations or the European Union. The deity which gives may be the deity which taketh away. In some of our debates the division of powers has been represented as the extent to which a supranational authority impinges on the rights of the nation state, as though some giant vacuum cleaner sucks power from the nation state, its rights are destroyed and—so we are left to infer—the people lose their freedom. I believe that that is a wholly false pattern. What is in question in relation to each subject and power is the level at which decisions can most sensibly he taken. A decision about where to build a bridge or what land is set aside for a housing estate is not necessarily the level at which one should decide the fishing quotas for Spanish vessels in the western Atlantic. Still less is it the level at which one should decide the appropriate standards for the safety of nuclear reactors or how to save the rain forests. The only rights in question are the rights of the people to decide their destiny in the most convenient way.
I return to what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said about the uniqueness of Switzerland. The Swiss have developed their model over seven centuries, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, reminded us. They have developed it, not as an abstract academic theory, but in response to specific practical problems. I believe that that is true of most federations. In 1291 the peoples of the three

507
specific areas around Lake Lucerne needed to protect themselves from the Holy Roman Emperor. They grasped that for each of them self-determination lay in taking certain decisions together, even though for each it led to limits on the power to take decisions individually. Sometimes, it is in laying down our lives that we save them. They agreed on two things. First, they said that they would give mutual help if any one of them was attacked; secondly, they said that any disputes among them would be settled, not by war, but by arbitration. That was how they solved their immediate problem. I believe that globally our most pressing problem, like theirs, is to establish a stable peace. In the last resort, that will require an accepted dispute resolution procedure and a method of enforcing decisions against recalcitrant members. In this country, the King's peace was established when it was recognised that a sheriff could summon a posse and that all able-bodied individuals would join together against those who infringed that peace, and when, at regional level, the central government could summon sufficient force to impose the King's peace on the robber barons.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said, the Swiss did not think of themselves in theory as constructing a federation. I do not believe that they even thought of themselves as federalists. We would not regard what they produced even as a confederation. However, 550 years later in 1847, after the first step, when they had been so successful that they numbered 13 cantons, they became, not a Stattesbund—a league of states—but a Bundestat. Sometimes federalism is equated with centralism. There is a fear that the first step towards taking decisions at supranational level will lead to an unstoppable centrifugal process, sucking more and more power to the centre. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme. It is not the case, Human beings can always decide in which units and at what level they want to take their various decisions. If and when power moves substantially towards the centre, it does not do so by some impersonal process but in consequence of a decision taken by the people. I believe that in the case of Switzerland that was a rational decision taken in 1847 for good reasons.
In 1979 Sir Shridath Ramphal, then Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, encapsulated all of this at the Nigerian conference on federalism. He said that:
"Federalism as a method of organising government has been hammered out over many centuries by peoples the world over with creativity and constant innovation and always on the anvil of political reality".
Of course, it can be said that the Swiss federation has established its unity by force. But the Swiss have been wise enough to recognise two principles without which no force could have achieved its survival. Its constitution both in 1848 and 1874, and in subsequent amendments, was seen as responding to specific needs. No power was conferred on wider units unless there was a consensus that such power was necessary for the purpose.
There are two steps, the first of which is subsidiarity. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I was a little surprised when he poured scorn on the term "subsidiarity". He said that it was only about how
508
powers were distributed. Sometimes that is quite an important question, and in a sense that is what federalism is about.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will permit me to intervene. I did not intend to say that it was unimportant because the distribution of powers was unimportant but that the federal model in itself, in its various guises in various countries, managed to do this long before the term was imported into current discourse.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, the noble Lord and I are totally ad idem. That exchange was well worth while. With great respect, I could not agree more.
Another important aspect is consensus, a point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and by my noble friend Lord Taylor. It was not just a matter of subsidiarity. A step was not taken until there was a consensus that such provision was not an instance of subsidiarity and that it related to matters where decisions by one canton necessarily affected its neighbours.
Secondly, it was found that stability was not achievable simply by inventing constitutional provisions and writing them down on a sheet of paper. Stability requires a commitment to the purposes of the federation by the people for whose government it is designed. It requires a sense of unity and of common nationhood. That may happen because the people recognise how much they have in common with one another. As many of your Lordships have pointed out, that was not so for the Swiss. They had no common language. They did not have a common religion. Indeed, it was the religious divide which triggered the attempt at secession in 1847 which led to the new constitution. They had in common none of the elements which are normally said to amount to a common nationality, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said. Yet the citizens recognise themselves as Swiss, and there is a bond of loyalty between the individual citizen and the federation. Indeed, their pluralism has opened their culture to a wider range of influences.
Federalism does not depend on uniformity of outlook, or of interests, or of opinions. It can provide a sensible way of living together and co-operating precisely despite differences. The Swiss found that a most important way to achieve that was to establish structures through which the people could participate directly in the decisions of the federation and not simply indirectly through their canton. It is a lesson which we are learning in Europe, although I believe that we have to take it a stage further. I do not believe it will be fully effective until some of the powers of the Council of Ministers, which is the citadel of the nation states, are moved to the European Parliament, the institution representing the people.
I believe that in time the world will come to realise that, if the United Nations is to be seen as "We, the peoples", and not just as "We, the nation states", the secretariat will have to be accountable to a representative chamber. Then farmers in France and fishermen in Spain and—dare we hope—more Conservative politicians will recognise a wider loyalty to our planet, which will improve the quality of life for everyone.

509
What the Swiss discovered was that loyalty is divisible. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said, being a good Swiss does not preclude someone in any way from demonstrating a loyalty to his canton, and to his own commune.
I must have a care. The noble and learned Lord encouraged us to think more widely and less fearfully about these matters. I hope that we have responded. Not all the thoughts which I have ventilated are yet the policy of my party. I would not want to mislead anyone. But my party is alive to these issues and believes that we should reflect on them together. There is nothing to hold us back except the limitations which we ourselves choose to impose on our mental processes.
Sir Peter Ustinov, president of the World Federalist Movement, once expressed it in an article in the European in this way. He said:
"The sure evolution of Switzerland from a people described by none other than Machiavelli as 'armed to the teeth' into a civilised nation with a world mission out of all proportion to its size can be put down to its intelligent espousal of federalism".
That is a lesson well worth the learning, and I believe that posterity will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, for reminding us of it.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I have listened with great interest and pleasure to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, about the Swiss system of government. I am sure that I speak for all your Lordships when I say that. It was a stimulating introduction to what I am sure we can all agree has been a most worthwhile debate.
As the noble and learned Lord explained with his customary eloquence, the Swiss system is one with many qualities and good points. Perhaps the most important and admirable of these qualities is that the system works. It commands the support and consent of a diverse society because it respects, both in theory and in practice, that diversity. But because a particular system works for Switzerland it does not follow that it would necessarily work on a much larger scale for Europe, or for that matter anywhere else, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out in his opening remarks.
The word "federalism" was mentioned at a number of points during the debate. In his opening remarks the noble and learned Lord gave a correct and proper technical definition of that word. But as has also been mentioned during the debate, it has become debased in popular parlance. While we here know what it means I shall endeavour to use the word itself as little as possible in order to avoid wider misrepresentation.
Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Beloff pointed out, this is a subject on which just about anything can be said with relevance, whether it is shooting an apple off the head of my noble friend Lord Lye or going into the merits of Swiss ladies as potential wives. What I shall try to do is to focus on those matters which are relevant to our country and on the main points that have arisen during the debate. I shall also endeavour to divide
510
my remarks into two general groups: those which relate to outside the United Kingdom and those which should be more properly focused within it.
There are huge differences between Switzerland, with a population of around 7 million, and the European Union, with nearly 350 million people living in its 15 member states. I do not, however, intend to try to make a comparison between the Swiss system and the pillared structure of the European Union. That is because I believe it would be a mistake, as we approach next year's Inter-Governmental Conference, to slip hack into a sterile doctrinal and theoretical debate about systems of government. It was this perhaps more than anything else which caused the disillusionment with the development of the European political process and led in turn to the difficulties throughout Europe with the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty.
Just when Europe had shown the rest of the world an example by creating an outward looking, liberal, free-trading bloc of more than 300 million people, we turned in on ourselves. When we should have been building on the foundation of the single market, using this momentum to fight unemployment and further to improve Europe's competitiveness, we turned inwards and became bogged down in divisive and sometimes almost theological battles over the institutional balance, qualified majority voting and Community competence. Those were and remain important issues. We cannot and should not ignore them. But we must not focus on them to the exclusion of everything else. Doing that can undermine the entire process of which they are merely a part.
That is why I believe that reviving a theoretical debate in the abstract about federalism would be unhelpful. Others agree. M. Balladur, M. Juppe and Herr Kohl have said that we must not do that. Only last month, the president of the European Parliament, Klaus Hänsch, told an audience in Bonn that Europe was already too large to contemplate there being a United States of Europe. He said that neither the United States of America Germany nor Switzerland could be a model for the Union, which would develop in a unique fashion. It is not all that often that the British Government and Dr. Hänsch are in full agreement, but on this there is nothing between us.
What we must do in 1996 is to build on the sound base for working together that was created by the Maastricht Treaty, which was implemented only 18 months ago and is still bedding down. Maastricht established a flexible structure well suited to satisfying different demands of co-operation at European level in the contemporary world. It created a pillared structure with inter-governmental co-operation in the common foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs. In the Community pillar, which covers important areas such as the single market, competition rules, agriculture and trade, the Commission, the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice are fully involved. This structure needs to be improved, not dismantled. We will be bringing forward a number of positive proposals to improve it so that it works better over the next 12 months or so.

511
A number of noble Lords, beginning with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, referred to Europe and subsidiarity. We have in your Lordships' House discussed this matter on numerous occasions. It is defined clearly in Article 3b of the Maastricht Treaty. That article was a considerable success for Britain. Its effect is that, in areas of shared competence, the Community can only act if it has genuine value to add over national action. Moreover, if it does act, then it should do so in the least intrusive way possible.
Substantial progress has been made since Maastricht. The Birmingham, Edinburgh, Brussels, Corfu and Essen European Councils have put flesh on the bones of Article 3b. The number of legislative initiatives has more than halved since 1991. All have now to pass a stringent subsidiarity test. The Commission has withdrawn 11 proposals no longer deemed to meet subsidiarity criteria. At the Brussels European Council, the Commission said that it would propose the repeal of about 25 per cent. of all existing legislation. Some of them would be repealed for good and some replaced with a smaller number of new proposals. That work is well under way.
Perhaps even more importantly, the principle is now firmly embedded in the minds of the European Union's law makers. There is a general realisation that what is required is fewer laws, better observed, and that a Community which forces its way into every corner of people's lives will weaken their commitment to Europe.
Subsidiarity is working and I share all noble Lords' enthusiasm for it. The European Union approach I have described is designed for the flexible framework that the Union represents and is rather different from the Swiss model which sets out clearly and formally which areas are for action at cantonal level and which are for the federal government. I doubt that this approach makes sense for the European Union. Would such classification really end the turf battles between member states and the Community over divisions of competence? We have here a subsidiarity model that works. The Government's intention is to build on this in 1996 to make the existing mechanisms work better and not to break them up and start again.
I now refer to some more domestic matters. I begin with some comments about Northern Ireland which a number of noble Lords mentioned. In particular I shall refer to what, if any, relevance the Swiss system might have there and to try to help to resolve the tragic troubles that that Province faces. The key in Northern Ireland, as in other parts of the world, is to find a system of government that the local political representatives would support and which is relevant to local circumstances. I believe that there has been very general agreement around the House about that basic approach.
To the best of my knowledge, none of the main constitutional parties there has shown any serious interest in the type of structures which are to be found in Switzerland and which have been the basis of our discussion today; although, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, mentioned, many of the characteristics of the Swiss system may well be helpful. I believe that was the point made by my noble friend Lord Beloff. He said that he did not see that the Swiss
512
model had any special relevance for the Northern Irish problem although we seem to be agreed that there may be lessons to be drawn from it.
What seems more likely to secure convergence is a system involving a devolved Assembly, with executive and legislative responsibility for a range of local issues such as health, education and agriculture, and which offers a fair and effective role for all sections of the community. New arrangements within Northern Ireland would be supported by other arrangements for close co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic where this was to the mutual benefit of both north and south and for close co-operation between the two governments.
Ideas on these lines were, of course, published recently in Frameworks for the Future. The ideas in those framework documents have stimulated a level of public debate in Northern Ireland and that is what they are intended to do. They are designed to help the political parties and the wider community make progress towards an agreed, comprehensive settlement. That is what we must continue to strive towards if there is to be lasting peace in Northern Ireland, taking full advantage of the very welcome ceasefires that have been in place from both Republicans and Loyalists since last Autumn. In order to carry forward political dialogue, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has recently announced that he intends to invite the main constitutional parties for bilateral discussions in the near future.
I was most grateful for the gracious comments of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, about the framework document. I am sorry to see that Oxford has called him. Perhaps he will allow me in his absence to pick out one point of detail. Reference is made to a possible charter of rights. However, there is no specific proposal for a Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland. The framework certainly stresses the desirability of increased protection for civil, political, social and cultural rights, but leaves it for further discussion with the parties as to how that protection would be provided. I hope that that is a helpful clarification.
I now turn to the other matters which were raised in the context of domestic politics within the United Kingdom. I understand the approach adopted by many noble Lords who spoke, but it seemed to me that there was a certain degree of cherry picking by those noble Lords who had a particular point to make. If they found it somewhere in the arrangements that are in place for Switzerland, they then said, "That helps to prove our point".
Perhaps more of the debate relating to the United Kingdom referred specifically to Scotland than to any other particular matter. We had a wide range of strongly held views expressed by noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Cockfield and the noble Lords, Lord Taylor of Gryfe and Lord Holme, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. As is appropriate with someone with his background, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, began his learned exposition with the constitutional history of our country; but it seems to me that in the context of this particular debate it is important that we begin from where we are now. We

513
begin with a unitary United Kingdom. That has arisen not simply by accident, but evolved over time in response to particular requirements which people have had.
Against that background the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said that in the most recent local government elections only 11 per cent. of the population voted Conservative. Needless to say, anyone who is a Conservative supporter would rather that more had done so. But it is important that we put that into perspective. There may be a multitude of reasons why people, for one reason or another, may feel disgruntled or antagonistic towards the Government, but it would not be responsible to think about a fundamental change to the constitutional arrangements of our country simply on the basis of one local government election where the Government in power found themselves very unpopular.
In response to the problems that there may be, we have to see exactly where the real focus of interest and concern lies. I understand that in my childhood there was a general election in which the Conservative Party polled more than 50 per cent. of the votes cast in Scotland. At that time perhaps one might have drawn an entirely different conclusion. As regards the constitutional arrangements we have to see where the real wishes of people lie. It is certainly the case that Scottish people have consistently voted for parties which are pro-Union. It seems to us that against that background, if there is to be a change in the constitutional arrangements in the Union, a case has to be made for that change. At the moment, that does not seem to have occurred.
There was a similar point about devolution which applies even more widely as regards how the doctrine of subsidiarity—a horrible word which I am sure my noble friend Lord Beloff would agree—actually fulfils a useful function in this kind of debate. Is subsidiarity being properly applied domestically? As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, subsidiarity, like charity, begins at home. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, complained about the gathering of power to the centre.
It seems to me that the same general principles apply here. The particular arrangements that we have currently in our society have not arisen merely by chance; they have evolved over time. It is undoubtedly the case that if one were to go back, say, 10 to 15 years, there was very serious criticism throughout society about the ways in which various activities were being carried out at local government level which were not giving people satisfaction. Again, the problem here is to identify the issue. In a democracy it is collective decision-making which is important and that is to discover what people want. Simply to apply rigidly a kind of doctrinaire principle automatically reducing decision-making to some kind of legally identified lowest possible level, regardless of the circumstances, does not necessarily mean that we shall give people the best system to live in or one that is delivering its services to their best advantage.
514
Reference was made to proportional representation. Perhaps not surprisingly, it was the noble Lord, Lord Holme, who said that one of the great features of the Swiss system was that it proved that PR can work. In fact, the Swiss system is not quite as straightforward as that. It is interesting that most of the cantons have some form of first-past-the-post system. It is also relevant to note that in certain of the Swiss cantons, the different size of the constituencies becomes relevant. In a small canton with just two seats, a small minority party may need up to 34 per cent. of the votes to win just one seat, while a similar party in a large canton such as Zurich may need only 3 per cent. of the votes.
It therefore emerges that the effects of proportional representation are weakened in the small cantons and that proportional rule favours the relative electoral strength of the larger historical parties. Therefore, as far as proportional representation is concerned, I do not believe that the experience of Switzerland takes us a great deal further in respect of any debate that there might be in this country on the topic.
Right from the opening remarks of the noble and learned Lord, reference has continually been made to the unique system of referenda in' Switzerland. It is a political phenomenon which undoubtedly attracts many people. Perhaps its most attractive point is that mentioned by my noble friend Lord Moyne, who said that the presence of referenda—checking the government—has a salutary effect on the rulers. Perhaps not surprisingly, speaking from the Dispatch Box, that is not something that necessarily appeals to me.
The important point behind that slightly frivolous way of describing the system of referenda is that, as can be seen from the Swiss case, it can cause serious problems about government because there is now concern about the impact of lobby-driven initiatives. There is an increase in the ease with which the requisite number of signatures is breached and that has led to a backlog of initiatives. A revision of the constitution is due to address that in the summer. Equally, there have been problems about the Federal Council's foreign policy. Clearly, any country has to have a foreign policy and must be able to implement that policy.
We have been discussing some attractive ideas, but it is worth remembering that the tradition in our country is one of representative parliamentary democracy. That is the bedrock on which our nation has evolved. In recent years, referenda have been introduced, but that is very much an ad hoc development and cannot truly be said to he an integral part of our system—and our system has served our country well. We would have to think carefully before fundamentally undercutting what we have been bequeathed by our forefathers.
Many things can be learnt from the Swiss system of government—both about its systems and the principles upon which it is based. But, when all is said and done, what matters is the applicability of the lessons learnt—whether we are thinking about domestic politics or politics abroad.
We must not forget that we have other experiences on which to rely. It is clear from our European experience that if you try to impose unacceptable

515
constitutional models on unwilling participants they will not succeed. It is misguided and usually divisive and can destroy the common purpose that it is designed to create.
It is central to our policy that the positive achievements of the European political experiment are not pushed aside by theoretical debate over constitutional niceties. The way in which Europe develops must be sufficiently flexible to accommodate our shared traditions, history, democratic principles and the rule of law. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, pointed out, political institutions can succeed only if they command popular support and provide tangible benefits. While the way in which we work and live together must be intellectually coherent, it must also be acceptable in human terms. If we fail to achieve that, we shall risk making a theoretical system which will not work whatever the level at which we try to apply it.
As far as our European policy is concerned, our task is to build a Europe of nation states for the 21st century which is competitive and which faces its global economic rivals from a position of strength; a Europe that pulls its weight internationally and plays a constructive role in international relations. That is the Europe that Europe's citizens want; that is the Europe that the British people want.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to your Lordships for your participation in this debate. I hope that it is not invidious if I mention only one or two contributions. First, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, showed the great advantage of a refresher course in constitutional law conducted on the ski slopes.
I should like to refer also to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who I know came along to make his speech today at great personal sacrifice. He made his splendid speech under what must have been a considerable strain. All of your Lordships should he grateful to him.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, made the most original contribution; namely, that within a few decades it might be possible technologically for us to have a system of direct democracy on the Swiss model by using press-button techniques. One should put that in the context set by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer; namely, that direct democracy in our country, as in Switzerland, was the original form of democracy with the meeting of the Hundred and the meeting of the Wapentake in this country, just as there was the meeting of the Gemeinde in Switzerland.
The subject of proportional representation is altogether too large to be dealt with in this debate, although I confess that it did not surprise me at all that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, jumped at the chance to develop that aspect of the Swiss constitution.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, in his scholarly and, if I may say so, constitutionally discerning speech, made a most valuable contribution. I do not think that I am merely prejudiced because our professional backgrounds have so much in common.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who summed up for the Government, addressed all the topics that we hoped would he addressed by him, and did so
516
admirably. However, I should like to refer to the one point on which I found the noble Lord less than convincing. I refer to the subject of the referendum. We have had it in this country. The danger is that unless we work out systematically where it is desirable and who asks the questions, it will simply be clamoured for by a populist minority who find that they cannot get their own way in Parliament. I am convinced that there is a place for a referendum, but it needs to be considered much more carefully by a royal commission on the constitution, together with so many other constitutional matters.
There are two lessons that have come out of this debate. The first is that federalism is one of the constitutional aspects of subsidiarity. The second is that looking at the Swiss constitution, it is impossible to say that a federal constitution means an overweening central power at the expense of the component members. Having said that, there remains my Motion for Papers. I do not know what would happen if I took this Motion to a Division, I do not intend to do so because the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, also has a Motion for Papers on the Order Paper, and I would not wish to deprive her. So I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Social Workers: Training
5.10 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull rose to call attention to the case for increasing the training and expertise of social workers in view of their growing responsibilities; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I seek to recommend that the training of a field social worker should involve a three-year degree course to replace the present two-year diploma course. Should a student have already gained a degree, then I recommend that the student should serve a two-year university course. I believe that there should be a degree in social work, with each university responsible for its own degree course, thus giving it the status and standing of the other professions. It is perhaps not inappropriate to mention that I believe there should be a general social services council as recommended by Professor Roy Parker in 1992.
I am grateful to the Council for Education and Training in Social Work; to the many universities which have written or faxed their views; to the Association of County Councils; the Association of Metropolitan Authorities; and the British Association of Social Workers. They all submitted their recommendations during the Easter Recess. Further, I am grateful to have seen Mr. Greenwood the chairman of the Council for Education and Training in Social Work who is convinced of the need for a three-year university course in social work leading to a degree. It is to the credit of the Republic of Ireland that there is already a three-year degree course for social work. I also look forward to hearing what is happening in Scotland from the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie.
Perhaps I may give some background history. In 1987 the Council for Training and Education in Social Work applied to Her Majesty's Government for the two-year course to be extended to three years. I believe that it was agreed that there should be a two-year diploma course and that the qualified social worker would take up a post and return later to take a one-year qualifying course. While I have every sympathy with the Treasury in its policy to curb expenditure, the officials of that department appeared not to appreciate that local authorities (not the Treasury) would have to pay, and that a temporary member of staff would have to be paid by the local authority.
It is true that the training support grant has been helpful. With diffidence I am bound to point out to the Treasury (as indeed have other Members of your Lordships' House in other debates) that to take a short-term view is not cost-effective in the long run, and leads to greater and unnecessary expenditure. For instance, it was stated in the Clyde Report, following events in Orkney, that the social workers were inadequately trained. Great resources have been expended on public inquiries into distressing childcare abuse cases when at least some of those might have been foreseen and prevented. But enough of the past.
The social work service has worked, and is working, under pressure. Since 1987 when the decision to have the two-year course was taken, Acts of Parliament have been passed which lay heavy and difficult duties upon social workers: the Criminal Justice Act 1988; the Children Act 1989; the Criminal Justice Act 1991; the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (yet to be implemented, but which concerns social workers); and the Education Act 1993 (Part III). Those Acts are in addition to the 13 other Acts of Parliament implemented or used by social workers.
It must also be said that the explosion of awareness and concern of child sexual abuse, little acknowledged in years gone by, has required knowledge, skill and understanding. We look forward to the report to be produced by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who is the chairman of the National Commission of Inquiry into the Prevention of Child Abuse set up by the NSPCC.
All those Acts require collaboration and co-operation with other professions. Doctors have a five-year or longer training; health visitors have a four-year training; teachers have a three-year training; the social worker is often the person to call a case conference and in some cases to play the leading role, yet he or she is the least qualified among his or her professional colleagues. Social work in the UK is a non-registered profession. I should add also that judges have commented to me upon the lack of knowledge and understanding of the law shown by some social workers. That is not surprising, because 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the two-year course is spent outside the academic institution. Social workers in the European Union have a longer training than those in the UK. My noble friend Lady Elles will speak on that matter.
I wonder whether the heavy responsibilities placed by statute on social workers are generally appreciated. They have to make decisions that affect the liberty of citizens. That is under childcare, criminal justice and mental health legislation and can lead to parents losing children and children losing parents. They must deal with homeless teenagers, the vulnerable elderly, and mental health cases in the community. They need to foresee where prevention of breakdown could be dealt with—a skilled piece of work which needs to be done and needs to be extended.
I pay tribute to the social work service. Much of its taxing work is unheralded and unknown. Only the breakdowns are news, and those are as distressing to the social workers as they are to the cases themselves and to the community.
The status, the standing, the knowledge and the skills need to be reinforced, and I submit that that can best be done by providing a university course. I have not touched upon the training of social workers in a residential setting. I believe that that too should be a degree course, and my noble friend Lady Elles will speak on that subject.
In conclusion, perhaps I may submit to my noble friend the Minister that a residential conference might be held in the first instance, perhaps in Cumberland Lodge, inviting CETSW representatives, representatives of the universities and of the local authority associations, bearing in mind the report of the Association of County Councils, The Work Force and Training in the Personal Social Services 1992. I recommend also that civil servants, particularly those from the Treasury and the Audit Commission should be invited to attend. I am sure that the Sieff Foundation would be willing to undertake that task. With this short speech, I beg to move for Papers.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, both for initiating the debate and for her distinguished contribution to the cause of child welfare as a whole.
I very much welcome the debate and wish to concentrate on the role of social workers engaged in the residential care of children and young people. We are more aware that even children in care are at risk. Regretfully, reports of official inquiries—some general, some specific—into children's homes can be numbered by the score. One of the continuing themes of such reports, from Curtis in 1946 to Warner in 1992, is the need to improve selection and training of staff. That point was made by the noble Baroness.
The past 20 years have seen profound changes in the form and role of residential care, not all of them for the better. Since 1981, the number of children in residential care has fallen from 37,000 to fewer than 8,000; that is, from 40 per cent. of those in care to fewer than 15 per cent. That has been reflected in the widespread closure of large traditional institutions. The National Children's Home, with which I am involved, has closed almost all its large homes. Some were closed as the result of

519
strategic decisions but some were closed unduly precipitately because of the withdrawal of placements by local authorities.
In their place have come smaller specialist units providing care or respite for disabled youngsters, often as an alternative to permanent hospital care; care for profoundly disturbed people, among them the most damaged and delinquent members of their age group; and the offer of independence training to young people on the point of leaving the care system, which is too often the prelude to homelessness or a young offenders' institution.
The positive reason for the reduction in the number of young people in care is the wholly desirable aim of keeping natural families together in the community or, alternatively, of placing children and young people in foster care. However, repeated breakdowns of fostering placements can make difficult problems worse.
The negative reason is that keeping children and young people in residential care is very expensive. Costs can range from £30,000 per year per placement to well over £100,000 in the case of a home in south London in which the NCH is involved. It caters for deeply disturbed teenagers for whom the alternative could at best be a lifetime in prison and at worst suicide.
It is regrettable, if hardly surprising, that local authorities may opt to keep disturbed youngsters in the community in the knowledge that if they offend and are convicted the Home Office will pick up the bill for secure accommodation. However, one way or another, caring for young people will cost us, the public, a great deal. Part of that cost must be employing staff of a sufficiently high calibre and with sufficient training. That has long been recognised by leading child charities such as Barnado's and the NCH, which has had its own training college since the 1930s. But, by and large, those are the exceptions. In many parts of the statutory sector we have seen a reduction in the resources made available to residential care, a neglect of training and the consequential spread of a feeling of marginalisation among staff.
Those staff are having to cope with a residential care population which covers a growing concentration of the most difficult and disturbed young people in our society and with children and young people who need special educational help and who have learning difficulties, disabilities and behavioural problems. As the noble Baroness emphasised, no one should undervalue the work being done in those homes. As was emphasised by the Warner Committee, for example, for the most part those who work there do a remarkable job in trying circumstances for very little thanks or reward. Yet successive inquiries—Wagner, Pindown, Utting, Howe and Warner among them—have found that most of the staff in residential children's homes have little or no training and that the most needy children and young people in our society are being cared for by the least qualified and least experienced staff engaged in social work.
Those inquiries have insisted not only on the need to improve training on and off the job, pre-employment and in-service but they have again and again emphasised
520
the dangers of not developing a coherent strategy for residential care. As ARCC—the Advancement of Residential Child Care—insisted:
"It is time to call a halt to the process of inquiry and report, and to embark instead on a concerted and comprehensive strategy to improve the quality and standing of residential child care for the benefit of children".
To that I add that it is time to reconsider the case for extending the availability of specialised residential childcare.
Such a strategy must encompass respite provision on a regular basis at one end of the scale to secure accommodation at the other, and it must include the provision of temporary accommodation in the case of family breakdown and more permanent placement, which can be a perfectly valid choice by some young people for perfectly sensible reasons; for example, older children who do not wish to be fostered.
However, if residential childcare is to take its proper place in overall provision, committed and properly trained staff are of critical importance. These people are in direct contact with children and young people, often on a 24-hour a day basis. They are very special people and they need very special qualities and specialised training. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, drew our attention to the fact that while we rightly insist that doctors, teachers and nurses who work in residential homes must be fully trained, we cannot accept that the staff who actually care for the children should be unqualified.
Among the experts there are differences of view on the best form of training but it is common ground that all heads of residential care homes for children should hold at least the Diploma of Social Work and preferably a degree. I fully share the anxiety expressed by the noble Baroness about the inadequacy of the present two-year course and the need to develop it into a full three-year course. I do not pretend to have any expertise in the field but I see the strength of view that, as regards other staff, supervised work-based training that is integrated into the NVQ system is the best way of providing staff with the skills and competences that they can directly relate to the day-to-day tasks.
Very few young people are in residential care because they have committed offences. Most of them have had distressing and damaging experiences, often including physical and sexual abuse. Two out of three suffer from emotional or behavioural difficulties. All are individuals with different needs. All deserve the best help that can be given to them and that help must come through the medium of caring, committed and, above all, well-trained staff.
5.28 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for creating this timely opportunity to debate a subject on which she possesses unique experience and such great knowledge that I speak with trepidation. The first question to be asked is: what do social workers do? Here we must distinguish, today as yesterday, between on the one hand their own descriptions of their work and training and on the other their actual practice.

521
Forty years ago, they were stuck in the phase of what the late Barbara Wootton, then a severe critic, called "pyschoanalytic self-deification", although she was always at pains to emphasise that their practical work was greatly to be preferred to their theorising about it. Their theorising led them to claim that their case work could be identified with the art of changing human attitudes. As reliance upon Freudian concepts diminished, so specialisation among social workers—the psychiatric social workers, the childcare workers and those who worked with hospitals or children—came under attack because of the effect which having to meet several social workers might have on one disrupted family.
One result was the establishment of a few so-called generic training courses in some universities. Another result was the setting up of the Seebohm Committee. That led to an Act in 1972 which abolished the specialist councils responsible for training in social work, childcare and probation. It put in their place one central council, the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, explained. That body has become a powerful empire which regulates the procedures and content of training and which enforces its policies through the allocation of grants to the institutions of higher education responsible for the courses which it approves.
Some 18 months ago Professor Robert Pinker, who until recently was a professor of social work education at the London School of Economics, made a comment in the context of a statement made by Mr. Jeffrey Greenwood. At that time, Mr. Greenwood had been appointed chairman of the CCETSW. Mr. Greenwood said that:
"at the moment, there is clearly a crisis of public confidence in social work and social workers".
Robert Pinker traced the problem and the crisis to the introduction of a set of guidelines by the CCETSW which Professor Pinker said:
"firmly introduced the language of political correctness, stressing the need to challenge the 'oppressive' social institutions of Britain, and introducing the notion of widespread racism throughout our society.
With their introduction, the Education Council became politicised, and core skills came to be neglected in favour of ideology. The Council ensured that students would become less social workers than quasi-political activists … by asking them to challenge suppression in all its forms …
I have been professor of social work studies at the London School of Economics since 1978, and it has always been my belief that social workers should deal with individuals and their problems, and should avoid politics or proselytism. Over recent years, I have watched with increasing dismay the erosion of a decent and useful profession, an erosion that has been taking place for years with scarcely a glimmer of government or public interest".
I am bound to say that I agree with Professor Pinker that that is not to suggest for a moment that the evils of racism and other forms of discrimination are not present in Britain. But I agree very strongly with his view that it is not the function of social workers to assume a political role and become the agents and promoters of social change.
522
What should social workers be doing? In addition to their specialist tasks in respect of, for example, childcare, to which the noble Lord, Lord Murray, referred, they should be keeping abreast of the provisions and developments of social services so that they can advise people who are tangled in the immense complexities of the welfare state and our social services. They should be mobile and accessible welfare encyclopedias within the system, taking vulnerable and ill-informed people by the hand and guiding them as to available services. They are the only people available in the community for that essential task.
My conclusions are that better and extended training is essential. I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said about the need for three-year courses and for a differentiation between graduates and other kinds of people coming into training. But the last few years have demonstrated that social work is not rooted in a firm or stable intellectual tradition. Unhappily, it is not yet a scholarly profession. That assertion is supported, for example, by the lack of research by social workers into the results of their own activities.
The present situation does no credit to the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. I hope that the Government will abolish the council and replace it with a smaller and more representative validating institution.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I know that the whole House will be grateful to my noble friend Lady Faithfull for making use of her luck in the ballot by raising the important issue of the training of professional people engaged in social work. She made a strong case for raising the level of training for social workers in the light of their growing responsibilities. I shall be interested to hear the response from my noble friend on the Front Bench.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, reminded me of the moment shortly after I became Secretary of State for Social Services in 1979, just a year after Professor Pinker was appointed to the LSE, when I said at a private meeting with some chairmen of social services departments that they needed to get a grip of their workforce because many of them were behaving more like socialist workers than social workers. Unfortunately, my remarks were leaked to the press and it created quite a stir. However, I am comforted by reminding myself of the line Professor Pinker took at the time because I think we were both right.
The particular aspect I wish to bring to your Lordships' attention is the need for significant change in the arrangements which are made for those who work with the visually handicapped. I speak as chairman of a body called the Visual Handicap Group. That is an informal umbrella body which includes in its membership representatives of the 10 major voluntary organisations of, and for, the blind and partially sighted. We have been in existence for only about three years but in that time, with the help of our able consultant, Dr. Graham Lomas, we have produced two major

523
reports. The first was about the need to develop a network of resource centres for visually handicapped people across the country; the second was entitled Perspective on Training: A Consultative Report. It is about that recently published report that I should like to speak.
Like other speakers in today's debate, I begin with the needs of the client group which is where all social work should start. Noble Lords will remember that in 1991 the Royal National Institute for the Blind published its survey, Blind and Partially Sighted Adults in Britain, which, to summarise a very detailed study, showed that there are nearly a million visually-handicapped people in Britain, the vast majority of them elderly, most of them unregistered—and very few of those receiving any services. The survey also established beyond doubt that failure to register a person as blind or partially sighted virtually guaranteed no access to any of the services that are available.
Not to put too fine a point on it, the survey came as a bombshell, both for the voluntary bodies and for the statutory authorities. It showed that the numbers of people who should have access to services on account of visual handicap was between two and three times higher than the estimates that everyone, including my noble friend's department, had been working on.
Part of the problem lies in the traditional low priority accorded to those with sensory handicap by most local authorities. We have heard today about the needs of the children's services and no doubt we shall hear about the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. As those needs have become more prominent and insistent, so the needs of those with sensory handicap have slipped back. According to one calculation, the availability of trained workers to assist the visually handicapped falls short of the need by over 50 per cent., amounting to many hundreds of jobs which simply do not exist.
Another factor is the manifest inadequacy of the traditional arrangements for training workers to work with visually handicapped people. The former providers of training, the North Region Association for the Blind and the South Region, both of which had done good work in the past, lost the confidence of government and last year their grants were terminated. In their place, the Government established a separate head of the training support grant for people working with the visually handicapped.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example of what can happen to someone who is losing his or her sight. The elderly person has passed through the medical profession; that is, from the GP to the consultant. After examination, the consultant may say, "I am afraid there is nothing that medicine can do to save your sight. Have you got someone to take you home?" And that is the end of the matter. Yet there is a very great deal that skilled and committed social work can do for such people. There are living and mobility skills that can be taught; there are services available, such as talking hooks and talking newspapers which can be provided; and in many parts of the country there are, although there need to be more, networks of care which can provide social contacts, mutual support and encouragement to continue to live a full and worthwhile
524
life. There are also specialist services. I should like to mention one with which I am connected; namely, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. Indeed, there is a whole raft of services out there which could come together under the general heading of "rehabilitation work". Yet, with far too few trained rehabilitation workers in the field, and with the statutory providers apparently giving a low priority to this work, most blind people are left to fend for themselves.
The first need is simply to raise awareness of the problem. That was done last October in a spectacular way at a "Think Sensory" conference at Wembley. People drawn from a wide range of statutory and voluntary organisations took part. What was particularly encouraging to many of the voluntary bodies concerned was the evidence of a new commitment by the Association of Directors of Social Services to raise the priority of the sensorily handicapped.
Secondly, the voluntary sector has an enormously important part to play, mainly through the agency of local societies for the blind and partially sighted which are taking up the challenge. There are now a number of collaborative schemes coming into existence between, say, a local society and a national body or, perhaps, a local authority. Local societies are increasingly entering into contracts with local authorities to provide services for the visually handicapped. Local resource centres are beginning to come into existence, bringing together many of the organisations which are in a position to help. Perhaps, as examples, I may cite the new resource centres which have been established in Bristol and Brighton; indeed, there is now an excellent one in Edinburgh. National societies such as the Guide Dogs for the Blind are beginning to make contracts, as is the case in Lincolnshire, with social service authorities to provide a whole range of services to a very high standard.
However, the shortage of trained rehabilitation workers is seriously hampering the work. The RNIB, with a course at the University of Central England, the Guide Dogs for the Blind, with its own training school near Reading and with a small offshoot at Forfar in Scotland, and Henshaw's Society in the north west, are now the three main providers of such training. Yet the sum available from the training support programme is only £250,000 a year—at least, that is what it was in the year just ended. It seems pitiably small when set against the need to train many dozens of rehabilitation workers a year.
At the beginning of last year there was a fear that even that sum would not be taken up. Happily, that fear has proved groundless. On the contrary, the demand for places now substantially exceeds the supply. I am told that in this academic year some 29 students, who passed the selection interviews at the GDBA and the University of Central England, have been unable to take training either because they could not personally afford the fees or because their local authority would not, in the end, pay for direct employee training. Perhaps I should explain that it was only local authorities which originally had access to that training support programme money. However, after the Visual Handicap Group made representations to my noble friend's department, it

525
was extended to cover voluntary bodies which are under contract to local authorities to provide services. Nevertheless, the money still cannot be accessed by voluntary bodies which have no local authority contracts or by students wishing to train on their own initiative. That is a great pity because there are many different kinds of people now coming forward offering themselves for such work—for example, people seeking second careers, people who have retired early, people who have been made redundant, wives who wish to return to work, and those people who find themselves unemployed. Such people can bring a richness of experience to the workforce which was not present some years ago. That emphasises the importance of finding some method of funding people who do not come from a traditional, local authority background.
The report of the VHG also examined at some length what the content of training should be. It is clear that the traditional routes, often by way of add-ons to normal training, no longer fill the bill. Much more specific, purpose-related courses are essential. Following the Wembley conference, a strategy group was set up with members drawn from the Department of Health, the Association of Directors of Social Service and the voluntary sector. That is now seeking to carry forward the work to identify appropriate syllabuses and qualifications.
In February, members of the Visual Handicap Group met my honourable friend John Bowis, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health. Our main request was to ask that the Government should now acknowledge that the needs of the visually handicapped deserve a much higher priority and that we need, particularly, to have a higher priority for the supply of trained workers.
We stand, as voluntary bodies, ready to play our part but in a matter of this sort it is for the Government to give the lead, and that is what I ask for this evening. As we consider the training of social workers in general I hope that my noble friend will recognise the particular needs of the million or so of our fellow citizens who are blind or partially sighted. There are people out there willing to be trained. What is in such short supply are the resources to train them.
5.50 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, explained very fully the reasons why it is felt that social workers should have an extra year's training, and that their diplomas should be upgraded to a three-year degree course.
Since they were established in 1971, social services departments have been required to implement legislation in the social care field of ever-increasing complexity, the most recent being the Children Act 1989, the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and the Criminal Justice Act 1991. All of these have greatly contributed to the changed responsibilities of local authority social services departments and the skills required of practising social workers. Of these the Children Act 1989 and the care in the community legislation have increased the workload as well as the
526
responsibilities of social workers. These include a great variety of duties, such as responsibility for those who suffer from mental illness, learning difficulties, sensory and other physical disabilities. I was very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, speaking of guide dogs for the blind. My daughter collects used postage stamps for guide dogs and our village is about to pay for—I think I am correct in saying—a third guide dog. The duties also include not only work with the elderly but with their carers as well, the latter being very important. There are also juvenile offenders, children and families and their carers.
In North Yorkshire, where I live, these groups are served by service units or teams. They are organised on a basis of children and families, older people, adults, mental health, health and disability and learning disabilities. All the requirements that are needed to deal with any situation that might arise make one pause and ask how all this knowledge, with the practical learning, can be achieved within a two-year training course.
Social workers have to make decisions which affect the lives and liberties of citizens. This is particularly so in the case of mental health, child care and criminal justice legislation. They need to know about welfare rights and services which can he called upon, to learn and practise skills for helping people, especially skills in intervening in the lives of those who do not want to be helped. In the case of families, it is important that the approach should be practical and easily understood by the mother, so that an unhappy or harassed mother can easily understand what is needed and how they can be helped, especially those who feel they do not need or want help.
British social workers have the shortest training in Europe. One way in which social workers might be helped to take a further qualification would be for those who have a first degree in sociology or social policy to be able to take a second degree in less time, their first degree counting towards their second one, such as in a law degree.
Can the noble Baroness explain about student loans? I understand that students studying for a diploma in social work cannot get a student loan, yet a student who has a first degree and is taking a one-year post-graduate course in education can have a student loan, and of course a student loan for their first degree. Can this anomaly be looked at? If the diplomas were upgraded to a degree level and extended to three years I imagine a student would then be eligible for a student loan.
Another benefit of the extension of the course to three years would be to enable students to enter social practice components of the course with a greater foundation knowledge in social science, which would obviously be a great help to them in their work. Can the noble Baroness say whether that would enable social workers with a degree to work in the European Union? The European Commission regulations apparently differ between member states for the training of social workers. There appears to be a requirement of three years' training as a minimum basic requirement. I understand that their courses end in a degree.

527
I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, has to say about the member states of the European Union. At present social workers from other members of the EU are able to work here, but our qualifications are not recognised in the EU. That appears to create an unfair, one-way opportunity. Do those who apply to work here have to show they are qualified in English'? English is a difficult language, and to show how difficult, I would like to end with a quotation from a novel, The Cruel Sea, by Nicholas Monserrat, in which a Russian interpreter says to a British naval officer in Murmansk,
"You British, you think we know damn nothing, I tell you we know damn all".
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot beat that one but 1 shall try to say a little on what I hope I know about. We must all recognise how extremely fortunate we are to have had this debate introduced by someone who is incomparable in the field of social work in this country. My noble friend Lady Faithfull has already this evening shown her immense practical knowledge and experience in this field and we are most grateful to her for introducing this subject today.
The Government have recognised the need for training, and continuous training, in many fields in this country, particularly in industry and the development of technology and innovative subjects and science. However, it is extraordinary that, although so much change has occurred in the industrial field, there is no other field in national life which has changed more than our social life. I refer to the breakdown of marriages, drug addiction, sexual abuse and whole fields of events of which we in your Lordships' House are only too well aware. However, I have not yet heard the Government recognise that this, too, is a field in which closer attention must be given to the adequate and efficient training of people who have to deal with these radical changes in social as well as in industrial life. I shall be anxious to hear what my noble friend Lady Cumberlege will say on the Government's approach to the need for a new look at training in this difficult and complex area.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, referred to the complexity of the welfare state. However, nothing can be more complex than our own lives and those of children, of ill people and of people in different sectors of our society who have already been mentioned in our debates. In this House, above all places, we are only too well aware of the impositions that have been placed on local authorities through legislation. The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, has already enumerated many of the Acts which have affected the work of local authorities and has referred to the need for trained social workers to deal with the many tasks with which authorities have to deal on a daily and long-term basis.
We are, of course, aware of reports of failures which have appeared in the media. We are aware of reports of errors which, regrettably, some social workers have committed. We are all aware of these failures. However, as my noble friend Lady Faithfull said, we are not always aware of the immense work and dedication which so many social workers have given to difficult
528
tasks day in and day out with little notice, little reward and with no commendation from the public and indeed from the Government. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take the opportunity to thank and commend the invaluable work which is done by so many thousands of our dedicated workers.
When we consider training, we may think of training in the field of technology. If someone makes a mistake when using a computer, at the end of the day he may have to buy a new computer—for example if he has pressed the wrong button. But do we recognise the difficulties which arise if a social worker makes a wrong judgment and makes a decision on the basis of that judgment which can alter for ever the life of a particular individual, be he a child or an adult'? Surely the life and way of living of one person is just as valuable as a computer which may be thrown away when someone has made a mistake. I hope that that point will go home.
As regards the residential care work being carried on in this country, I know of no place where more work is done and more attention given than in the Caldecott Community home in Kent, of which I have the honour to be a trustee and whose distinguished chairman is my noble friend Lady Faithfull. There is evidence of tragedy in the lives of the seriously disturbed children who come to the home. Between 70 and 75 children stay in the home, either to save them from impossible situations or to protect society from them.
The task of residential workers at the Caldecott Community is to ensure that at the age of 18 those children are able to face the world on their own, emerging from care, protection and affection. The aim is to teach the children emotional balance and ensure that they are able to earn their own living at the age of 18.
Those of us who are parents or grandparents know that even with all the benefits of our society which so many of us enjoy it is very difficult to ensure that even well-balanced children, with all the comforts and facilities that we can give them, are able to fit into society today at the age of 18 when they suddenly find themselves on their own. Therefore, surely it is much more important to have skilled residential care workers to look after children who have to rely on those individuals to enable them to cope with life when they leave the Caldecott Community.
Thanks largely to the energy and enthusiasm of my noble friend Lady Faithfull, the Caldecott Community has set up a Caldecott College which offers courses to those working in the childcare sector. That covers foster parents, child minders and others. The college also offers a degree course for social workers in a residential setting. The intention is that those people will have practical experience of what it is like to look after seriously disturbed children 24 hours a day. As the director of the Caldecott Community never fails to tell us, children have become more and more difficult in recent years. Our day-to-day experience confirms the need for this specialised course.
The degree course has been set up in agreement with the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. Whether the council should be abolished is

529
another matter, not to be debated now, but the council has agreed that the course is invaluable in dealing with this particular subject.
I should like to touch on the European aspect. Early this afternoon we had a debate which related to subsidiarity. This is one area where there is no longer to be harmonisation of standards for the training of social workers. The European Commission no longer has a co-ordinating role in this field. In some countries—for example, in Belgium—there is an obligatory three-year course after secondary education which ends either with a diploma or, usually after four years, a degree. That system applies throughout the member states. However, there is not to be a system whereby a general standard is recognised throughout the member states of the Community.
There is an international association for social workers with a European Community liaison committee. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will have information on this subject from that body. I am sure that it will be of benefit to examine the type of courses which are held throughout the Community. Many Community countries look at our own system, knowing the many problems that we have in this country, which are not always reflected in their own societies. One will see in any newspaper throughout the Community that individual countries have to deal with different problems, and they train their social workers to deal with those specific problems in their countries and within their local authorities and regional authorities. I believe that it would be well worthwhile for the department to investigate those systems and courses in order to establish the best that can be produced.
In terms of recognition of diplomas, presumably somebody who has taken a two-year training course would not be given the same job as a social worker in Belgium, where a three-year course is necessary. It is not a question of the subject matter being different, but the depth of training is lacking in a two-year course. I hope that that is a matter which the Government will look at to ensure that we are not negligent and that our own trained social workers do not fall below a general standard, whether or not one calls that a European standard.
I should like to touch on one further area. It is a phenomenon which, although not new, is now facing experts in the field. That problem is actions perpetrated by some people in official positions against whom it is difficult to take action. The problem has been brought to my attention by psychologists who have had to deal with difficult situations which, at present, can be dealt with only by taking action in the civil courts against somebody who has perpetrated some act against a victim. Social workers are often the only people who can deal with such problems.
In conclusion, I should like to take this opportunity to thank my noble friend for giving so many of us the opportunity to speak of our own limited experiences in this field. The voluntary social work of 30 years ago is no longer recognisable in today's society. I hope that
530
the Minister will take on board the remarks that have been made this afternoon and that we shall have a positive response to the needs of our social workers.
6.7 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness who has just spoken in such an interesting fashion and all the other speakers in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. After the noble Baroness had finished speaking I wondered whether there was any more to be said. That is the trouble with a really first-class opening speech; it leaves everyone else with a sense of hopelessness. However, we have to do our best.
I was moved by the reference to the partially sighted. About a year ago I ceased to find it possible to read any book which was not in large print or to read a newspaper article. I have to ask my wife to read to me if she is in the mood. However, there are compensations. One cannot use notes, and we are always told that in the House of Lords Peers do not read their speeches. So at least one is spared that temptation. I remember that the grandfather of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, spoke much better when he was almost blind than when he could see. One draws some encouragement from that example.
The noble Baroness has unique knowledge of local government. It is a rather dismal reflection that when she came to this House many years ago she was the only qualified social worker, and she is still the only qualified social worker, in this place. I do not know what conclusion one should draw from that. Perhaps social workers do not occupy a high enough position in our society today.
I recognise, as we all do, the almost terrifying responsibilities that may fall on social workers. That has been in my mind since this morning when I visited a man who is in prison. He is serving 12 months in prison and his wife is also serving 12 months in prison. I only know his side of the story, and I do not offer an opinion on the rights and wrongs of the case. According to his own account he and his wife are in prison because they attempted to interfere improperly with the lives of their five children, who were taken away from them six years ago on the recommendation of social workers. For six years they have been trying to get those children back. Apparently they made such a fuss, or behaved in what was thought to be the wrong way, that they both find themselves in prison now. I do not offer an opinion. Those social workers may have taken the right decision, or they may have taken the wrong decision. However, it is a terrifying responsibility to take five children away from a father and mother who, to the best of my belief, love those children.
Those are vital responsibilities and that is why social workers need thorough and careful training. I agree with what has been said by various people, including the noble Lord, Lord Murray, that proper training is vital for doctors like my noble friend Lord Rea, lawyers, the police and teachers. We all agree that professional training is vital for social workers. Some people may say that it is possible to succeed in life without much education. Sir Winston Churchill had to leave Harrow

531
in order to be crammed for Sandhurst and we understand that Mr. Major and the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, both left school at the age of 16, but all three got on very well in the world.
One may say that education is not absolutely essential, but we generally agree that it is highly desirable and it should be provided for the whole community. As parents, we make every effort to ensure that our children have a good education. Education and training are much better than no education and no training.
We come to the question: what training and how long should it be? Yesterday I had the privilege of talking to three social workers at different levels. One was near the top of the profession locally; another qualified and passed his diploma some time ago and after years of experience in work and marriage he is now taking a further degree. The third is a young woman taking her diploma now. All three arc at different stages but they all agree on the absolute necessity for thorough academic training and experience of work—that is a double training.
How should that be provided? We must bear in mind that a two-year course rightly includes about a year working in the field. Academically speaking, therefore, the course is for only one year. Speaking as a former university tutor, I regard a one-year course as derisory for an academic qualification or any degree. Therefore, on the face of it the two years should be extended to three. It may seem that that stands to reason, but it becomes even more obvious in the light of the facts brought forward initially by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and other later speakers, about the increasing responsibilities. The noble Baroness read out a list of Acts which, in recent years, have placed new responsibilities on social workers. I have in mind particularly responsibilities for the mentally ill, who are complicated cases. No one can say that a knowledge of psychology is anything but extremely useful, perhaps indispensable in dealing with such mental cases. That is only one example.
The whole idea of community care means that more and more work, more burdens, more responsibilities and more delicate choices are thrust on the shoulders of the devoted social workers. Some people would suggest that for voluntary work one does not need training. Most of us here have done voluntary work and we would not argue in that foolish way. My noble friend Lord Murray referred to the terrible situation of children being placed in residential homes. As he said, sometimes they are offenders and sometimes not, and they are put in the care of devoted but untrained people. That is only one aspect.
It comes to this. Do we believe that people should be given a thorough professional training? At present one cannot say that that is done but we believe that it should be. If we were allowed to do so in this place, we should
532
rise and stand behind the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and beg the Government to do something about training.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps by introducing this debate my noble friend Lady Faithfull has put tinder to the torch of commitment towards many of our people who are less fortunate than us. Perhaps the debate and the contributions which have been made will serve a permanent constructive purpose of immense value.
The training of social workers is a large subject. The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, referred to residential homes for the elderly and the problems of the mentally handicapped. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding mentioned the plight of the blind. My noble friend Lady Elles referred to residential care for the young. Every contribution has its own special worth.
I shall concentrate on the cardinal importance of the family as a social entity and on the cohesive services of social workers to the fabric of our society, including the vulnerable elderly.
As all other noble Lords have said, the enhanced training and status of those who attend on families where there are distressed or disturbed relationships has now become a matter of national concern. It lies fair and square within the exclusive remit of the Government, central government. At the outset, a tribute must be paid to the sense of dedication of those who provide the services in difficult, dangerous and emotive situations. Their sense of dedication is not to be called in question.
However, as my noble friend Lady Faithfull said—and she is an acknowledged expert with a lifetime of experience—there should be a three-year training with graduate status at first degree level of higher education, funded by central government, no doubt within the allocation of the Department for Employment.
As to the three-year period, it has the support of Lord Clyde, and Lord Justice Butler-Sloss from each side of the Border. It operates in Ireland and is in conformity with EC requirements as regards the interchange of professionals.
As to graduate status, it would confer an ethos of competence, confidence and authority. It is proposed that the present non-graduate programmes should be extended to three years, linking the DipSW to the award of a Bachelor's degree exactly along the lines proposed by my noble friend Lady Faithfull.
As to the mechanics, the Government will set the standards and methods of training to qualify for the degree. That might perhaps include a course on relevant aspects of law to be given by highly qualified teachers, as suggested by my noble friend. All other aspects of implementation such as recruitment, conditions of employment, and the rendering of the services would remain with the local authority.
As to resources, the cost to the Exchequer of the extra funding for training should surely be regarded as a sound but requisite investment in the future social well-being of our people. Account must be taken of the fact that the broken family sows the seedcorn of crime

533
and truancy. The cost of the public inquiries and the vast cost of litigation funded on all sides by the state has to be taken into account.
The national council, set up—I think, in August—by the NSPCC no doubt will render signal service, always bearing in mind that it is the parents rather than the children who are in need of help and advice. A course of study on parenting and life skills in the national curriculum, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady David, who is not in her place although she would wish to be, could well be of immense value. But when trouble comes it is the foot-soldier on the doorstep, the dedicated social worker, well trained in the state of the art, upon whose help, advice, decisions and actions the well-being of a family in distress must rely.
There is nothing more for me to say other than that the case for increasing their training and expertise and for according status to the social workers has already been made out, even before my noble friend Lady Cox rises to speak. The hope is that the Government will take and implement the appropriate policy decision as soon as possible.
6.22 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, on introducing this debate, which aims to make the case for a third year of professional training for new entrants to professional social worker posts. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, for mentioning residential staff, who are distinctly one of the forgotten groups within the social services.
I ought to declare my interest. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, will perhaps be interested to know that in 1968 I was a student on an experimental three-year diploma course in social work. That course was experimental in that it did not deal only with social work but also looked at community work and attempted to teach it to school leavers. The course predated the formation of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. Subsequently, I worked in various capacities, eventually specialising in offender services, for in Scotland there is no separate probation service. Therefore I am very interested in the debate. I know that the expectations and duties placed upon social workers have been much expanded since I completed training in 1971. That training involved me in practical placements with 16 different agencies and began to marry theory with practice.
During that period, an attempt was made successfully to bring all social work activities under one roof and so bring to an end the separate services offered by the children's department, the welfare department, the mental health department and the probation department. That remains the current position in Scotland. An attempt was also made to abandon a specialist approach and to bring in generic social workers who were to be competent right across the spectrum. That practice was often resisted by those who had worked in the old departments. But new entrants were quickly given generic caseloads with access to specialist advisers as
534
well as their senior social worker line managers. All that was taking place at a time when professional training itself was not widespread.
Gradually, the generic approach has declined and specialist posts have been created within social work departments. It was recognised that the skills and knowledge base for a generic social worker was too wide and that the clients would be better served by a more focused social worker but one who understood more than just his or her own specialist area.
The rise in the amount of social work legislation has not only brought about rescheduling of priorities for social work departments, but has also caused social workers to learn and relearn the statutory base for their work. The in-service training task is considerable in that respect. That is an area of formal training to which more time needs to be given.
Noble Lords will have heard me say in the recent debate on probation work training that it is important for social work trainees to be given a broad education in the whole social policy area and that they must understand the context in which they work. To that, I would add that they must be given a knowledge of policy formulation and the legislative process so that they would be better prepared for the ever-changing nature of their statutory duties and indeed their non-statutory duties.
The rise in the number of high priority cases in which several different agencies are involved has highlighted the need for management skills, calling case conferences and running them while acting as key workers implementing the subsequent decisions from all the agencies. To be effective that has to be based on a broad knowledge of how other agencies work.
The case for an additional year of training seems to me to be quite clear. It is unfair on everyone to launch into professional practice a social worker who could have been more thoroughly trained and who would have established greater practice experience.
In Scotland, social work education is organised by four training consortia. Several colleges offer the basic two-year central council approved diploma courses and two colleges also offer a three-year degree course. But those degree courses are the so-called two-plus-one courses, where the professional qualification is achieved in two years and an additional year allows for further study. There are proposals to expand the basic qualification course to three years, which must be welcomed, especially as the Scottish social work context is wider. But those proposals can be implemented only when the central council has the authority to increase the training requirement. I must remind noble Lords that the central council is, of course, a federal organisation.
I note with interest and admiration that so far the only part of these islands to have the common sense to extend social work training to three years is the Republic of Ireland. I congratulate the Irish on their wisdom.
Little is gained by undertraining social workers—the professional group through whom we expect an ever-widening range of people to improve the quality of

535
their lives. The decision to extend training to three years would be widely welcomed and should be implemented without delay.
6.29 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lady Faithfull on raising this very important and timely topic. It is important and timely because social workers have been given such expanding responsibilities for the provision of care to so many of the most vulnerable members of our society.
Before I embark on a contribution, part of which I fear may sound a little critical, I must pay tribute to many very committed social workers who fulfil their challenging professional responsibilities with dedication and professional competence. I also emphasise that I broadly support my noble friend's plea for more systematic high level education for social work students, with the proviso that it does not become prey to the problems which have characterised some social work courses to which I shall refer.
First, however, the extension of social workers' responsibilities reflects changes in the law and changing trends in our society. The most dramatic extension of their role came with the National Health Service and Community Care Act which gave to social workers and social service departments the primary responsibility for the provision of care for the growing number of people being discharged from long-stay residential institutions into the community. That policy has many merits, especially for the more independent and least vulnerable residents of long-stay institutions. Discharge from institutional care into the community has been a success for many people who have found new independence, more autonomy and enhanced self-esteem and dignity. But for others, including many frail and infirm elderly people suffering from mental illness or handicap, the community can be a very lonely place, and for very dependent people with multiple needs life in a three-bedroomed house in a busy high street can be as institutionalised and even more confined than life in a larger residential community with recreational and occupational facilities on site.
Therefore, there is a challenge for those providing social work training to ensure that social workers are well prepared to take responsibility for these very dependent and very vulnerable people. Alongside these challenges there are many others, imposed by changes in society, such as the needs of children suffering from a family breakdown or from abuse of various kinds, or the multiple problems experienced by ethnic minorities. So there is a strong case for ensuring that social work students understand the diverse needs of those for whom they will be professionally responsible. I agree with my noble friend that a rigorous, comprehensive and professional education is essential.
However, I fear that the provision of an academic degree per se is not enough. The content is crucial, together with the match between theory and practice. Professional education must he teleological—it must be judged by the extent to which it ensures that practitioners are equipped to provide safe, competent,
536
sensitive care. And here I regret that I must express grave concern over the manifest failure of some courses, including those at degree level, to prepare social work students adequately for their professional responsibilities.
These problems are compounded by other sources of confusion in social work education and practice. For example, there is confusion about who are social workers. In some children's and some residential homes, unqualified staff are known as social workers—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest. I ask my noble friend the Minister: what are the training provisions and what is the range of responsibilities for these untrained social workers? Also, how are these matched to training?
Secondly, there is sometimes confusion about social workers' responsibilities when patients or clients are discharged from National Health Service hospitals into local authority or private sector community care. There have been many reports of problems in ensuring multiprofessional involvement in the preparation of each client's "care package". I hate the phrase "care package" but that is what is meant to be provided for patients being discharged from hospitals into the community. As many of these people have complex health needs, it is essential that their clinical requirements are met, and this must involve health professionals making their contribution to the assessment of needs and the provision of care. Unfortunately, there are many reports that health care professionals are not always adequately represented in discussions. This can have very serious consequences, leading perhaps to literally untold suffering. Social work students need an education which enables them to work more effectively with other professionals and ensures that the contribution of those professionals is appropriately included in all forms of care.
Thirdly, there is a practical problem on some courses in finding appropriate placements for students. Social workers acting as practice teachers have increased case loads with their new responsibilities. Consequently, many are unable to accept students or to provide adequate support and supervision. There is thus a backlog of students waiting for placements. As apprenticeship is an invaluable element in any practical professional training, this must be a serious flaw in any academic course.
Mention of the words "academic course" brings me to my concern over the academic content of many social work courses. For example, a course which I knew very well was offered at the then Polytechnic of North London in the 1970s. Your Lordships may say that that was a long time ago but the social workers who qualified as a result of that course are likely now to he in senior positions—in social work practice or in social work education. The course content was presented in a formidable document approximately one inch thick and full of largely Marxist-oriented courses of macrosociological theories of society. In the entire four years of that course the only reference I saw to mental illness consisted of a two-line entry requiring a critique of contemporary theories of mental illness. There was virtually nothing on the problems of elderly people or

537
of those suffering from mental handicap or chronic illness. Yet all of these people now come within the remit of the responsibility of social workers.
Some of the teaching was bizarre, to say the least: some of the lecturers contributed to and cited publications such as Case Con, a journal of "radical social work", which claimed that mental illness was a product of capitalism and that its cure was to adopt socialism. Incidentally, that was a particularly cruel irony at a time when the Soviet Union was using alleged diagnoses of psychiatric illness to repress and indeed torture political and religious dissidents.
The Polytechnic of North London was not unique. Of course not all the students who qualified from such courses swallowed everything uncritically, but they were still left with a great vacuum of knowledge about mental illness and the reality, say, of the tragedy of the suffering of patients with severe depression or acute psychosis, or about the complex needs of the multi-handicapped. It is therefore not surprising that some social workers were influenced to the extent that they had grave reservations, as a matter of principle as they saw it, about certifying anyone as mentally ill, even when medical staff deemed it necessary to do so for the safety of the patients themselves or of other people.
As I said, that course, which I knew personally and challenged at the time, was offered in the 1970s. But, as I also said, its graduates may now well be in senior positions. I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether there has been any provision for remedial education to enable them to obtain a rather more rounded view of the nature of the needs of clients and of families coming into their care. Are we sure that all current courses are beyond reproach? I fear not. I share Professor Pinker's concern, described so well by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris. In August 1993, just over 18 months ago, Melanie Phillips—hardly a right-wing writer—wrote in the Observer an article documenting continuing symptoms of ideologically dominated social work training. Now the ideology comes more in the form of "politically correct" commitments to various "isms", especially anti-racism and anti-sexism. I must emphasis that I abhor racism and I am intensely critical of injustice perpetrated by sexism; but I can also recognise old Marxist ideology under the guise of much that is being promoted now in the name of these "isms". I also find totally unacceptable any form of censorship on academic campuses in the name of politically correct ideologies. It is in this context that I find Melanie Phillips's critique disturbingly redolent of the ideological travesty of academic courses in social work education which I encountered in the 1970s. She claimed:
"University tutors are abandoning social work teaching because they say they are being forced to teach 'politically correct' attitudes on race and gender in a climate of intimidation and fear. Anti-racist zealots, they say, have captured the social worker's training body, the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work, which has built into the social work diploma the assumption that society is fundamentally racist and oppressive. The tutors claim that some pupils and staff are being intimidated. The Observer has spoken to several tutors who ask not to be identified for fear of reprisals. One said 'I've had students come to me crying.' Tutors have said to them 'You're white, so you must be racist: confess.'
538
And if they are going to get through the course, they confess … Students' marks, say these tutors, depend on whether their work displays the 'politically correct' attitudes … The tutors say students spend so much time on ideology they end up ill-prepared to deal with people's real problems. One tutor said, 'Students and tutors who question the CCETSW's assumptions run the risk of being labelled racist.' That's not education, but indoctrination".
I could have written those words 20 years ago from my own experiences in social sciences. It grieves me that they can be written today.
I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made some attempt to require social work education establishments to move away from such indoctrination and eliminate political ideology from social work education, but the revised Document 30 that she commends is not a real solution. Many concerned with social work education have called it a fiasco.
I conclude by urging my noble friend Lady Faithful] to appreciate that if she succeeds in her commendable objective of enhancing the length and status of social work courses it will not automatically improve the quality of education or practice. I hope that she will use the high esteem in which she is rightly held to influence the content of social work education so that practitioners will be adequately prepared for their new and expanding responsibilities.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, my authority for intervening briefly in this debate is, first, that I was involved for some 10 years in validating social work and other similar courses in the polytechnic sector; and, secondly, that I had the honour of initiating a debate in your Lordships' House on 27th January 1993 on the training of staff in children's homes. I should like to pay tribute, as other noble Lords have done, to all the good social workers who do extremely difficult work in what is an increasingly difficult area. I think that that tribute is all the more deserved, because I feel absolutely sure that they succeed in spite of their training rather than because of it.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull, and I believe nearly all other noble Lords, promoted the idea that the present two-year courses should be expanded to three-year courses. I am afraid that I have to disagree with that, unless something can be done about the quality of existing courses. When preparing for the debate two years ago I had to have quite a detailed look at many of the courses that were around then. I was this evening most heartened to hear what the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, had to say. He suggested that the time might have come to abolish the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. In our debate in 1993 I had some harsh things to say about CCETSW and its courses, which as far as I know have not been seriously challenged since. As I have had occasion to remark to your Lordships before, it seems to me that when we look at teacher training in the normal school system we look at the soil in which the roots of British state education feed. So it is with social work when we look at the courses validated by CCETSW.
In 1993 I made two suggestions of which I would now like to remind my noble friend the Minister. I ask for her view upon them now. The first is that if anyone

539
thinks that I or the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, or my noble friend Lady Cox, exaggerate the poor quality of CCETSW's courses, an appropriate sample should be validated by a small group of perhaps five or seven suitably qualified people. The majority of the members of this group should be health care professionals, assisted by at least one proven manager. Social workers and social scientists should be in a clear minority. This validating panel should be free to talk to students, who would have to be offered convincing protection against victimisation at their exams or in their subsequent search for work. I do not think that this would be an expensive exercise. I hope that the Government will consider it now, even if they did not consider it was suitable two years ago.
My second suggestion is that I remain sure that the group's findings will justify recommendation No. 62 of the Warner Report, and that the Diploma in Social Work should be abandoned in favour of a new diploma targeted very much more practically. In that respect, it is very encouraging to hear what my noble friend Lady Elles has had to say about the Caldecott Community's courses and their practical element. I feel sure that that is the right route to go, and I very much hope that the Government will do everything they can to expand that kind of initiative.
I shall listen with interest to what my noble friend has to say. She may tell me that CCETSW has changed its spots in the intervening two years. Personally, I will need some convincing.
I end by saying that until a clear unbiased professional examination of our social work courses takes place, and until the result of that examination is made available for wide public debate, there is absolutely no point in making the courses any longer or throwing any more money at them. As the Warner Report so wisely said:
"A common reaction to a report such as ours is to assume that nothing can be done without additional resources being made available. We are not convinced that this is so".
Nor am I. I very much hope that my noble friend can convince me that I am wrong.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, as I expected, put forward a very strong case for increasing the professional training of social workers to three years of graduate status. What I can say is more a cheer from the sidelines than a critical commentary, which we have had from the last two speakers. There is no doubt that qualified social workers and probation officers have to take on additional responsibilities today both because of changes in society, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others have mentioned, and as a result of recent legislation. That has been spelt out by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and other speakers. I do not need to list recent Acts which have added to the workload of social workers on top of what is already a very heavy load. Often, they deal with some of the most deprived as well as the most disturbed people in the community.
540
I should like to echo the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, about the problems and difficulties faced by social workers. They do not get many thanks when they succeed, but they get a lot of stick when things go wrong. That is rather different from the profession which I have been very lucky to be part of: medicine. In medicine one often manages to make people feel better quite quickly, and people express their gratitude. I used to get such a good supply of whisky every Christmas that it lasted me right the way through to the following year. That does not mean to say that I drank a bottle a day!
As a GP, I have worked together with many social workers and probation officers. Usually we have both been involved with families in which children have been at risk or with mentally ill patients where decisions have had to be taken about compulsory admission. I take the noble Baroness, Lady Cox's, point that sometimes social workers resist the idea of compulsory admission perhaps more than they might. On the other hand, they are the only people who stand up for the patient, and I respect them for it. In some cases in which I have been involved the social worker's decision has proved to be right and the patient has got well at home without having to go to hospital.
I have also had many links with probation officers with equivalent training, dealing with a variety of patients who have had brushes with the law. For many years I was a visiting medical officer to a reception centre which took in children who were in need of emergency social services care. On this point I very much echo the remarks of my noble friend Lord Murray about the need for the motivation, background and personality of workers in residential care to be carefully assessed and for their training to be better, as the noble Baroness suggested.
Although I have been very much impressed by the sense of responsibility and concern for their clients that individual social workers have shown, I have not always been quite so impressed by the depth of their knowledge or the wisdom of their decisions. I certainly have not been impressed with the bureaucracy of certain social services departments. I have sometimes sympathised with patients who have felt that social workers were acting more as another arm of the law rather than being their defender.
However much training a social worker or other professional —for instance, a doctor—receives, it is always possible to make mistakes and to get on the wrong foot with a client, particularly when he or she may be of a difficult or manipulative personality. Good additional training increases the skill and understanding of social workers. That minimises the chance of failure in communication. People in difficulties are quite often extremely hard to help, a point made by other noble Lords. That is part of their problem. The ability to stand outside the immediate issues, to show concern but not to be patronising, to be involved but at the same time detached, are not easy skills to acquire. But appropriate training can make a big difference and the additional year proposed will allow the additional breadth and time for reflection that is needed, as well as the detailed training in the legal aspects of their work, which the

541
noble Baroness suggested could be included. I hope that the Minister will take the case put by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, very seriously. It is based, as other noble Lords have said, on a long and hard working lifetime of experience in social work, for which she is enormously and deservedly respected.
The noble Baroness called for the creation of a General Social Services Council. I very much feel that that is a desirable aim, just as I should like to see a General Teachers Council in the same category as the General Medical Council, which performs a very useful educational and disciplinary role. I wish to refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, and ask whether social work has yet achieved a sufficient academic body of knowledge or body of research to constitute the background for creating such a council. I hope that the Minister will refer to that when she replies to the debate.
It is probable that the Minister will argue that her noble friend's case is a good one but that we cannot afford it. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said that this would he largely local authority expenditure, but nevertheless the money eventually will have to come from central government, because local government has no money to spare at the moment to increase expenditure on its social work training. Perhaps the noble Baroness will answer that point as well.
It is perfectly true that there must be cost implications—less so for the graduates who will be excused taking a three-year course and will have to take only a two-year course because they have already shown their academic capacity. In my view, the additional cost will be justified, whoever provides it, for several reasons. First, the British social work qualifications will have to be brought into line with European Commission requirements for the interchange of professionals. The Republic of Ireland has already done that. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, referred to this point. It is not a requirement as such, I agree, but, as she said, the three-year course will be needed for doing equivalent work in many countries in the European Union.
The second reason for increasing training is the added load of recent legislation. The Acts concerned have been listed by a number of noble Lords. The third and perhaps the most important reason for increasing training is that skilled work may well involve savings later. That is so with regard to making good assessments for those going into community care from National Health Service institutions. It also applies to the probation service, where skilled work with offenders results in a reduction of reoffending compared with custodial sentences. In social work, skilled work with families may prevent children having to be taken into care. We believe that any further separation of the training of probation officers from that of social workers would be quite retrograde. That was the overwhelming opinion of a large number of speakers in the debate on the probation service in your Lordships' House on 5th April, just before the Easter Recess.
542
Although it has been severely pilloried today, I should like to quote some remarks from the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. It carried out a review of the Diploma in Social Work in February. The council states:
"The…review has demonstrated the extent of the core knowledge required by social workers and probation officers and the importance of a rigorous, analytical and reflective approach to enable them to make difficult judgments about complex situations".
I do not see anything particularly Marxist in that. The quotation continues:
"Of prime importance for social workers and probation officers is all the relevant and new legislation, which gives them powers and responsibilities. Social workers and probation officers deal with some of the most difficult, damaged and sometimes dangerous members of society and their practice needs to be bounded by the law, informed by research, applied to and drawn from practice.
The Government took the decision in 1988 that the professional social work qualification should be confined to two years…Since then, there have been major developments in legislation, which have greatly increased the responsibilities of social workers; in particular three major statutes affecting the three major areas of service provision".
The noble Baroness made a plea for a strengthening of an important part of our social fabric. It may cost a few million pounds but it will be a valuable long-term investment. It is very gratifying that a call for such long-term investment is coming from the Government side of the House—though from the Back Benches. We have become too used to short-term thinking from the Government Front Bench over the past decade and a half. I hope that the Minister will be able to correct that in her reply to her noble friend's Motion.
7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I believe that even the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, the only other professional in this field here tonight, will agree with me that there is no Member of your Lordships' House better qualified, more knowledgeable or astute to introduce this debate than my noble friend Lady Faithfull. Those of us who have been involved in social work (albeit in my case some time ago) have long been admirers of my noble friend. She is indeed a legend in the land and we acknowledge her supremacy in this field.
I believe that this has been a very worthwhile and interesting debate. I have listened carefully to what all your Lordships have said, and I shall discuss many of the suggestions made with my ministerial colleagues and officials in the department. Bearing in mind the anecdote of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, perhaps this is the moment at which I should tear up my speech but, sadly, I do not have that sort of courage.
As regards the training of social workers, the Government believe that it is essential to establish the correct balance between generic social work and specialist expertise. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, referred to the 1968 report of Lord Seebohm. He foresaw,
"the possibility of workers al basic field level developing interests in particular aspects of the work".

543
He also went on to say,
"Specialisation will be necessary above this level, not least to help in the advancement of knowledge".
We have followed this pattern in developing the training we have today.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, reminded us too, with the greatest clarity, as did my noble friend Lady Liles, of the ever-increasing pressures on individuals and families and how essential it is that social workers and other staff are equipped to deal with the problems of people who come to them for help. It is right to be reminded that personal social services are being delivered in a social and demographic context which has undergone substantial changes over the past two decades. For example, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding reminded us in another debate, when Her Majesty came to the throne in 1952 she sent 270 telegrams to people on their 100th birthday. Last year she sent 2,923. I believe that they are now tele-messages. People are not only living longer but, as a consequence the number living alone has almost doubled in the past 20 years. As many of your Lordships will know, divorce rates are up while marriage rates are down. In the past 20 years the number of marriages has decreased by a quarter but the number of divorces has more than doubled. All this puts pressure on families and increases the chances that some families will not be able to cope and will turn to social services for help.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway mentioned the NSPCC commission of inquiry and speculated that it might make recommendations on the need to ensure that parents are helped to improve their parenting skills. The Government believe in supporting families rather than undermining them. An example of this is the Department of Health's £1.5 million family support initiative. Key elements of the programme have been to encourage self-help; to develop a partnership with families and to develop support through a network of helpful information and advice. I can assure my noble friend that we look forward to the results of the NSPCC commission. We shall continue to work with families and not seek to undermine them.
Although noble Lords have agreed that social workers should not see their role solely as agents of social change, we should also acknowledge, as did the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that social workers deal with some of the most vulnerable and difficult people in society. Sometimes there is a misconception among the general public that some social workers are too young, idealistic and under-trained for this very difficult task. But that is actually far from the truth. Over the past 30 years the proportion of field staff who are qualified has risen from 38 per cent. to over 90 per cent., with almost all team leaders now being qualified. The average age for those qualifying is 35, so contrary to public belief social work is in fact a mature person's career.
However, we share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, and my noble friend Lady Cox about political correctness. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Pearson will be pleased to learn of the review of the diploma which we have asked the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work to undertake. We wish to see a move away from the perception that
544
CCETSW is an organisation that concentrates on certain issues only. In future it will be seen as an organisation that prepares social workers to deal with the needs of all clients in a practical and effective manner.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, will my noble friend give way on that point? Is there really any point in asking CCETSW to carry out this survey? Surely we need some objective outside body to give confidence to the result?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that we should await the results of the report that CCETSW produces. I understand the point that my noble friend is making, but I believe that he will also acknowledge that CCETSW has a new chairman, that it has changed, and that it is now a different organisation.
Specialist social workers are certainly needed for specific but complex and sometimes intractable problems. That requires expertise born of knowledge and practical experience. But clients who need social workers need them to work with them in partnership on all their needs. I could not hut be impressed, like other Members of your Lordships' House by the eloquent and persuasive case made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin on the needs of those who are visually impaired. Indeed, I visited the centre in Brighton the other day and was enormously impressed by the work which is going on. I understand the points he made particularly on the somewhat narrow use of the training support programme. That is something I wish to discuss with my colleagues.
Since 1991 the Government have developed and resourced a training strategy which has four objectives. These are, first, to improve the quality of basic qualifying courses; secondly, to increase the number of people qualified; thirdly, to increase the training opportunities for existing staff; and, fourthly, to increase post-qualifying and management development training.
We undertook a five-year programme for introducing the Diploma in Social Work as the unified professional qualification. Over a rather shorter period, the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work has been working to establish a vigorous post-qualifying framework. This will ensure that we have expert practitioners in both the field and leadership positions.
However, we have had some concerns about the content of the diploma. The legislative context for contemporary social work has changed with the introduction of new policies mentioned by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, notably the Children Act and the National Health Service and Community Care Act. It is essential that social workers have a thorough knowledge of the new arrangements. We therefore insisted that the central council reviewed the diploma to secure its continued relevance today and to ensure that it keeps pace with developments in best practice. The changes to the diploma mean that all students are taught the relevant law for their own area of practice and are assessed on their competence. In this way employers will be able to have confidence in the newly qualified staff they employ.

545
Regardless of the area of social work in which students practise, they will all need to be knowledgeable about the laws under which social workers operate. They will need to be able to demonstrate in their practice placement that they not only know the law but how it works in reality. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, is so right when he says that no professional can hope to continue in effective practice without keeping up to date. We agree that it is essential that all professionals undertake continual professional development. I stress to my noble friends Lady Elles, Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that our model of social work training is to have a two-year basic course followed by post-qualifying education and training especially when questions of life or liberty are in question. Although I accept that that does not go all the way, I believe that it goes some way to meeting their aspirations.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, after gaining a qualification, another qualification is taken? I do not follow what the noble Baroness has told us.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is a two-year basic course followed then by modules which are specialist courses. For instance, if one is doing mental health work then one needs the extra qualification to become an approved social worker in this area. It is the same model which has been introduced very successfully for nursing under the Project 2000 scheme.
It is important that employers invest in the post-qualifying development of their staff. The central council agreed in 1992 to two levels of post-qualifying awards which are modular-based, and that is what I was saying. They can be acquired over a number of years. These awards will become available in the next year or so and should deliver expert and competent practitioners, but they are not in place yet. The scheme is just coming on-stream.
We have had concerns about the speed with which the post-qualifying framework has been implemented. We have therefore asked the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work to look at the framework, as a matter of some concern, to see how access to the awards can be speeded up.
Formal learning is one source for developing social work practice and it is important, but another essential part is supervision in the workplace. This supervision is not just about the management of work, but about what goes on in social work practice. It is a crucial element in developing both the person and the practice. In the days when my noble friend Lady Faithfull was a director, I feel sure that staff supervision was "normal" and was a key reason why her department was so outstanding. In recent years, however, that practice seems to have lapsed. We have therefore asked the National Institute for Social Work to start a programme of work around the theme of managing and developing practice expertise.
Both my noble friend Lady Faithfull and the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, spoke in favour of a general social services council to regulate social work. We are giving detailed consideration to the proposal. To help us
546
in this, we have commissioned two studies to look into possible standards for all those working in personal social services. The reports are due very shortly and we shall consult fully on any potential standards that emerge.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, raised the issue of student loans. I am afraid that I do not know the answer because the Department for Education is responsible. However, I shall write to the noble Lady. She can rest assured that the UK system of a two-year basic professional qualification for social work, supplemented by post-qualifying education and training, does not put our social workers at a disadvantage compared with those in some parts of Europe where there are three-year courses.
As social work is not a regulated profession in the UK, it falls outside the scope of the EU directive. Also as an unregulated profession, the recognition of diplomas is not necessary for social workers seeking to practise in another member state. All that is required is information on the qualifications obtained by social workers wishing to take up employment in another member state. However, my noble friend Lady Elles is right that despite mutual recognition of qualifications, a member state would require a separate assessment of the knowledge of its law and language to establish whether a social worker from another member state was competent to practise. I shall certainly take my noble friend's advice and study the training schemes in other countries because however good we are—and we are good—I do not believe that we have a monopoly on wisdom and understanding.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred to the Probation Service. As we had a very full debate on that in your Lordships' House on 5th April, I shall not go into those issues tonight.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull has pressed hard for a three-year degree course for social workers. As she will know, similar proposals were put to the Government in 1987. These were rejected by the then Minister for Health.
There are still some good reasons for not changing the present system which is still new in its entirety. I shall cite four of those reasons. First, post-qualifying training and development allows employers to determine what specialist training staff require in the sure knowledge that there is a solid foundation within the Diploma in Social Work. This allows greater flexibility to employers and builds upon local needs.
Secondly, social workers comprise between 10 to 15 per cent. of the statutory social services workforce. The remainder are care workers of one type or another: home helps, residential and day care staff, and so on. The Government have a responsibility to consider the needs of all the staff in social services and to consider not only social workers but the training needs of all those involved in the care of vulnerable people.
Thirdly, to go down a compulsory three-year college-based route for social work qualifying training would seem to go against the trend towards work-based learning. The policy of a two-year diploma followed by post-qualifying training means that the expertise gained after initial qualification is a mixture of both practical

547
experience and knowledge. This is what we need in social work: a thorough integration of experience gained from the workplace and the knowledge gained from academic work.
Finally, there is the question of cost. In 1987 the central council estimated that the cost would be in the order of £40 million—a substantial sum of money then and considerably more at today's prices.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway were right to raise the subject of resources. It is a question of priorities. Since 1987, we have introduced the training support programme—a specific grant—which now stands at almost £35 million covering the whole social services workforce and which supports almost £50 million of expenditure by local authorities on training and development. In addition, we have made £10 million available through the central council. This means that Government are spending well in excess of the £40 million that might have been spent on creating a three-year training course for social workers. This funding benefits all the social services staff—not just the 10 to 15 per cent. of social workers.
We believe that a two-year basic qualifying course is the right approach providing that it is supplemented by post-qualifying development. The department has invested heavily in the post-qualifying framework and is expecting the central council to implement it speedily.
I cannot leave this debate without saying a few words about the majority of staff in social services; namely, the large numbers of domiciliary care and residential care staff who deliver services to users day after day. Research has suggested that domiciliary care staff are in touch with almost 10 per cent. of people of pensionable age and that most elderly people who are housebound are in touch with the home help service.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, spoke with great insight about children in residential care. I know that he supports the 1991 Utting Report which found that not only is the task of residential care staff more challenging than ever before, but also that a substantial proportion of heads of residential homes for children were not professionally qualified.
That issue was raised also by my noble friend Lady Cox in her eloquent and hard-hitting contribution. My noble friend's views and those of the noble Lord were endorsed by Sir William Utting who recommended that all heads of children's homes should be professionally qualified and that up to one-third of care staff should also have a professional qualification.
I am sure that your Lordships will be pleased to know that the Government have accepted both recommendations and introduced the residential child care initiative as part of the training support programme. That has made available sufficient places on courses for all the unqualified heads of children's homes, but it leaves to the discretion of employers the proportion of care staff who need to be professionally qualified. The training support programme provides funding for secondments to diploma courses for those staff. The noble Lord is right that the people in charge of such homes are very special people who need special training to carry out their important work.
548
Your Lordships will know that the Government have been seeking to improve the skills of the whole workforce through the development of national vocational qualifications. In social care, there are now over 20 awards covering not only staff who work with children under eight but also staff who work with adults. New awards will soon be available for those staff who work with children over eight, including residential child care staff.
My noble friend Lady Elles explained eloquently the skilled and professional work that is carried out by the Caldecott Community, near Ashford in Kent. That community is fortunate lo have people of such calibre on its board of trustees. Its training course for mature students is something that we are watching with great interest. We believe that it is a worthwhile development and we wish all concerned well with that new venture.
In conclusion, the question raised by my noble friend Lady Faithfull is an important one. It is essential that we have social workers who are able to deal confidently and competently with the problems presented by children and their parents as well as those with mental illnesses, a visual or sensory handicap, elderly people and others who use social services.
Some may see the question of three years for the basic training of social workers as an ideal and, if money was no object, perhaps we would all agree. However, as your Lordships will, I hope, agree, the Government must pay attention to the needs of all social services staff taking into account the available resources. It is essential that all staff are equipped to carry out their work. To this end, we have introduced and maintained the training support programme which is very popular with local authorities. It not only funds particular training according to local needs but also helps social services departments to adopt a planned approach to training.
The Government will continue to make their contribution to the funding of the training and development of all social services staff, including social workers. Indeed, I hope that I have made it clear just how substantial the level of funding to social services training is this year.
I agree with my noble friends Lady Faithfull and Lady Elles and with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that social workers are often unheralded and unknown. Much of what they do is often unseen. In fact, we could say that the aim of social workers is to make themselves unnecessary. But, alas, they are necessary, and we need to hear more about their good work and ensure that with good training they are equipped to fulfil their difficult professional role.
We expect a lot from social workers. Sometimes we may expect too much. We need to be realistic about what they can do, and we need to support them with training that is relevant, right and of a high quality. That is what we are currently seeking to do.
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, first, I thank all those who have taken part in the debate. I am deeply grateful to them. I have had letters from six other noble Lords who wished to take part in the debate and who would

549
have supported the Motion, but who were unable to be with us. I thank also my noble friend the Minister for her, as always, charming, good and carefully thought out reply. Sadly, I have to say that I could not agree with it, and I think she knows that. All of us, including noble Lords who were unable to be here but who would have liked to have taken part, will be disappointed that my noble friend does not feel that the Government can support a three-year course, something we have all recommended and for which recommendations have come from almost every university, the Association of Directors of Social Services, and the British Association of Social Workers. I am sad that the Government take the view that it could not be.
A two-year course with a post-qualifying course was debated in 1987. My noble friend the Minister said that we had not yet got under way with such courses. But that was seven years ago. The post-qualifying course may be working in some parts of the country, but it is not working throughout the country for the simple reason I gave earlier—that the local authorities do not have the resources to send people on the post-qualifying courses or to appoint staff to take their places during that year. So the post-qualifying courses are not working. I am afraid that is no good my noble friend the Minister saying—I am sure she will forgive me for saying this—that we are getting such courses under way. Seven years is a long time, so I am sad that the Government feel that they cannot support the Motion, particularly as I believe that such courses would be cost-effective in the long run, as I have said previously.
Some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, and my noble friend Lady Cox, spoke in stringent terms about the courses. I am glad to hear some stringency enter the debate. That is very healthy. But I must point out that the HEFC has looked into the training courses this year. It found that 20 per cent. of the courses were excellent and completed innovative, practical links with day-to-day social work, and that the had courses should not distort views about some of the good courses that we have.
As some noble Lords have said, in the past CETSW has put out some unwise political statements. That is not the case today. If I were to have a dream which came true it would be that there was to be a three-year course. I hope that the Government will take the view that the Department of Health took over the Children Act 1989, and issue guidelines. The Department of Health's guidelines on the implementation of the Children Act 1989 are splendid. I hope that the Government will issue similar guidelines on the training of social workers. I believe that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway will agree with that.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, and my noble friend Lady Elles spoke about the training of residential social workers. The children we have in residential care are the most difficult, the most disruptive and the most delinquent. Their residential social workers deserve a good training equal to that of field social workers. Field social workers and residential social workers must work in partnership.
550
My final point was not covered by my noble friend the Minister. She usually covers every point, and we greatly admire her position on the Front Bench for the Department of Health, but she did not mention the fact that social workers are equal colleagues, sometimes taking the major responsibility with doctors—the noble Lord, Lord Rea, will understand this—with teachers and health visitors, and yet they are not trained as highly as those colleagues with whom they work in partnership.
I again thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I would point out to my noble friend the Minister that there has not just been full support here for the Motion but there has been full support for the proposal throughout the country. Perhaps she will sleep on that tonight and think differently come the morning. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.26 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
7.27 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It gives me particular pleasure to move this Second Reading, because it is one of my first acts as one of the two joint presidents of the newly formed Association of London Government. The ALG, as we shall have to learn to call it, was formed by the merger of the two associations that previously represented the boroughs in London (the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities). I am sure that everyone who has an interest in seeing London maintain and enhance its status as a world city will applaud the initiative of the leaders of the LBA and the ALA in overcoming their differences and joining together to form a united voice for London local government.
I regard it as a great honour to have been chosen as one of the association's founding presidents. It is good to see in his place—I was going to call him my noble friend—the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, my fellow joint president, who will be winding up the debate. I hope that this will be the first of many opportunities for us to work together to ensure that the voice of London local government is heard. Perhaps I should say that I have had a message from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who fully supports the Bill and has sent his apologies that for reasons of local government duties he is unable to be with us this evening.
The Bill is the sixth Private Bill to be promoted by Westminster City Council on behalf of the other London authorities. In common with all the preceding Bills, the process was overseen by the LBA and the ALA, and of course it is now the new association which takes on that

551
responsibility. It follows in a long tradition of London local government Bills by seeking a number of new powers to enable London's local authorities to face the many and disparate challenges that have arisen with the passage of time. They are cases in respect of which central government are unwilling to find parliamentary time for national legislation. I shall return to that aspect in a moment.
The provisions of the Bill range widely from new powers to improve London's worsening air quality to powers to control the proliferation of car boot sales. I suspect, however, that noble Lords who have put down their names to speak in the debate may be interested in particular in the air quality provisions. I shall later concentrate on Part II, which deals with that matter.
Part I sets out the Short Title and the major definitions. It also contains an "appointed day" clause so that boroughs can choose whether they wish to make use of the part of the Bill relating to car boot sales. Part II deals with vehicle emissions, to which I shall return in a moment. Part III will give London authorities powers to enforce bus lanes by using remote cameras in order to relieve the police of that responsibility and allowing them to concentrate on their other more pressing priorities. If Part III is passed into law it will mean that local authorities will take over the responsibility of pursuing and issuing penalty charges to those who are photographed in bus lanes in breach of regulations. The Bill provides that this particular offence should be decriminalised. The boroughs will be able to issue fixed penalty charges which will he a civil debt.
The proper enforcement of bus lanes is a high priority for the London boroughs which are working together to construct a 300 mile pan-London bus priority network. That must have the support of all who wish to see a growth and improvement in public transport in order to reduce congestion on our roads. The network will reduce the delays experienced by buses and will make them a more attractive option for travellers. Although the technology is still being developed, I believe that the ultimate intention is that the buses themselves will carry the cameras to detect drivers entering bus lanes illegally. I suggest that that may well prove to be a most condign deterrent and much more effective than the occasional copper lurking behind a lamp-post, much of which we see in this area today.
Part IV will make available to London boroughs the new system for licensing car boot sales. The boroughs do not wish to ban such sales because they often provide a valuable service for residents and help voluntary bodies to raise funds. However, there have been problems in some areas. Under existing legislation, a number of boroughs in outer London have had difficulty in controlling large car boot sales held in unsuitable areas. The Bill will give the boroughs the power to require organisers to make suitable arrangements to prevent excessive road congestion, provide sufficient parking and control litter. The boroughs will have the power to refuse a licence to a promoter who has not complied with the conditions on previous occasions or if the organisers do not satisfy them that they have made proper arrangements to deal with these matters.
552
Part V contains amendments to existing entertainments licensing legislation to bring the system in London into line with that operating in the rest of the country. This part enshrines present practice in statute and is included in the Bill as a tidying-up exercise primarily in order to make civil servants happy. I am always pleased if we can make civil servants happy and in this case the part is included at the specific request of the Home Office.
However, the boroughs' altruism in allowing the Home Office to use this Bill to promote its legislation has not been reciprocated. Despite repeated requests, the Home Office has refused to make any contribution towards the costs of promoting the Bill and I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will relay this gripe to their right honourable friends in the Home Office. It is not a good precedent. If a government department wishes to use a Private Bill, it should help the promoters.
Part VI contains a number of technical, miscellaneous provisions, including a power for boroughs to deal with excessive emissions from such things as tar boilers and generators on the street; and an amendment to allow Tower Hamlets council to be included in the list of boroughs participating in the London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill, which is now in another place. If any noble Lord wishes to know more about that Bill, I shall do my best to explain it.
I turn to Part II of the Bill, which seems to have generated the most excitement. Your Lordships will remember that during the passage of the Environment Bill I sought to persuade the Government that they should include in that Bill a general, national power for local authorities to undertake the kerbside testing of vehicles suspected of polluting the air. I am grateful that my noble friend Lord Ullswater is present on the Front Bench, although his noble friend Lord Goschen will reply to the debate. Although the amendments that I moved attracted support from all parts of the House, my noble friend on the Front Bench found himself unable to give any commitment that these powers would find their way into the Bill that is currently in another place.
So, we have to return to this London Local Authorities Bill to try to secure the necessary powers but, of course, limited to the London boroughs. I have no doubt that it would be very much better if the powers were national and contained in general legislation. However, only this week my noble friend Lord Ullswater confirmed to me that, although the Government are wholly sympathetic with the principle underlying the amendments on emission testing, which I brought forward, they are still some way from being in a position to bring forward government amendments during the progress of the Environment Bill.
In a letter to me dated 11th April, my noble friend Lord Ullswater stated:
"However, both your amendments and similar clauses in the London Local Authorities Bill"—
it applies to this Bill as it did to the general Bill—
"raise complex problems in relation to both charging regimes and the allocation of police resources".

553
One of the advantages of having been in Government is that one can recognise the code. In this case, the code is perfectly clear; my noble friend is having serious problems with his honourable friends at the Treasury and the Home Office.
Traffic in London is now the biggest cause of poor air quality. It is also clear that a substantial proportion of that is emitted from a small number of badly maintained cars which make a wholly disproportionate contribution to the deteriorating air quality in London. I am told that the RAC gave evidence to the Transport Select Committee in another place to the effect that 10 per cent. of vehicles were responsible for more than half the emissions of carbon dioxide from vehicles. Those vehicles are the "gross polluters", and Part II of the Bill is designed specifically to deal with them.
It has been said—and it was said in our debates on the Environment Bill—that the police already have these powers. However, it is widely recognised that the police have other priorities. It is simply not realistic to expect the police to carry out the very specific testing and enforcement that is needed if these polluters are to be taken off the road. The answer is that the local authorities have the interest and the motivation, and they should have the powers, to do that and so free the police to get on with their more important responsibility of fighting crime.
In Part II, the Bill provides that the local authorities may stop and test vehicles to see whether a vehicle meets the MoT emission standard. If the vehicle fails the test, the owner will be liable for a fixed penalty charge and will be required to remedy the defect that is causing the excessive emissions. Failure to produce within 56 days a certificate signed by an approved examiner showing that the vehicle now complies with the standard will make the owner liable to a criminal fine of up to £5,000. If we wish to be serious about air pollution we must take these stringent powers.
Your Lordships will recognise that the first stages of this process are, in effect, decriminalised, with fines being replaced by a civil fixed penalty charge, the proceeds of which can then be recycled to cover the costs of the enforcement of the work.
In Schedule 1 the Bill also makes provision for an adjudication system similar to that recently introduced for the new borough parking scheme. The intention of that is to make sure that the courts are not clogged up by motorists challenging the increased enforcement necessary to achieve cleaner air. Evidence has reached me that that has proved to be a very effective and acceptable system for parking and there is no reason why it should not be equally acceptable in this regard.
So far, so good, and I do not believe that any of that is unduly controversial. But I now turn to what is certainly controversial; namely, the stopping power. When I moved amendments to the Environment Bill last month, they did not include a stopping power. However, when the Bill was deposited, it did include a power for local authority officers to stop vehicles on the highway to test their exhaust emissions. Objections to the stopping power are the basis of the sole petition which has been lodged against the Bill jointly by the RAC, the AA, the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage
554
Association. I note the names of those noble Lords who are to speak in the debate and I have no doubt that we shall hear their arguments deployed eloquently this evening.
Of course, I recognise the concerns that have been expressed about that particular provision. In turn, I must ask noble Lords to recognise the reality that those vehicle emissions provisions would he entirely ineffective without the stopping power. As I have said, the police already have powers to deal with vehicle emissions but simply do not use them because they have other priorities. If we want a local authority to have power to test vehicles but leave them to rely on the police making sufficient uniformed manpower available to let them use it, it will be a classic case of willing the ends without willing the means.
I believe that that measure needs to be thoroughly examined when the Bill goes into Committee. If the Petitioners, who clearly want to see the offending vehicles removed from the road—and I look forward to hearing confirmation of that this evening—can provide some solution which both meets their objections and achieves the main purpose of Part II, that might well be the way forward. However, the London boroughs, having reconsidered the matter in the light of the petition, believe that they must continue to press for the local authority stopping power. They do not relish the prospect and they recognise the concerns about people other than policemen stopping traffic. Perhaps the Government can help: if the Treasury can be persuaded to let the proceeds of the charges go in part to paying for additional police manpower to be deployed solely on stopping vehicles, leaving the local authority testers with the task of carrying out the subsequent testing and enforcement, then that could be a way forward which meets the anxieties of those worried about the stopping power as well as those who are to pay for the necessary police activity to carry it out.
Part II of the Bill also seeks to give the London boroughs powers to deal with the drivers of vehicles who sit in them for long periods leaving their engines running. I had an example of that the other evening when a hotel lobby was filled with fumes because the driver of the bus outside refused to turn off the engine. That is quite unacceptable. Local authority environment officers should have the power to order that the engines be switched off.
The aim of reducing pollution by targeting the so-called "gross polluters" is extremely important. There has been a great deal of anxiety about air quality in London and other major cities and its impact on respiratory disease. I have seen that within my own family. This Bill attempts to tackle the problem. Westminster City Council estimates that increased enforcement of vehicle emission standards could reduce emissions within its area by up to 25 per cent., which is an extremely valuable prize to seek. The power to issue fixed penalties reflects the widely recognised principle that the polluter should pay. The power to recycle the penalties to pay the costs of enforcement is equally sound in principle.

555
I commend the Bill to the House. No doubt, the points at issue between the promoters and the petitioners will be argued over during the Committee stage, but I hope that the House will allow the Bill to proceed to that stage. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Lord Jenkin of Roding.)
7.45 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, first I thank my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding for his very clear exposition of what is contained in the Bill. Also, I congratulate him on his appointment as joint president of the new combined association. I congratulate also the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, on his joint presidency of that organisation.
My noble friend is quite right to say that I shall confine my remarks solely to Part II. I have absolutely no objection nor any views whatever on the other parts of the Bill.
In making the case for opposing Part II, I should like to state firmly from the outset that I support the general intentions of the Bill as outlined by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Boding. There is no argument about the importance of tackling the air pollution caused by vehicle emissions. That is a problem in many of our towns and cities, in places with higher pollution levels than London. It is clear that we do need measures to ensure that vehicle emission standards are properly and fairly enforced. The Government have, of course, already taken steps to tighten enforcement. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, the disproportionate effect of gross polluters—the 10 to 15 per cent. of vehicles which cause 50 per cent. of air traffic pollution—means targeted enforcement during the year between MOT tests is necessary, and I fully support it.
Although I agree with the spirit of the aims which lie behind this part of the Bill, there are practical considerations within it which I do not think are acceptable. I would like briefly to set out my main objections to the Bill as it stands.
First, we should be sure that new legislation is really needed. There are already laws in force under construction and use regulations which provide the necessary legal framework and sanctions for tackling polluting vehicles. Enforcement is not happening on a large scale because there are insufficient resources available to effectively tackle the problem on our streets. But shortage of money does not mean the existing regulations are wrong and that we necessarily have to scrap them and start all over again. I am not against new legislation, but the real issue is how to find the resources to enforce the law, and if there is to be new law, it must be carefully drafted, and consistent with the many related pieces of road traffic legislation already on the statute book.
Moreover, the existing construction and use regulations apply across Britain. Traffic emissions are a national problem and should be dealt with on a national basis, rather than just in London. This Bill would allow for the establishment within London of 32 separate emissions testing operations which, in theory anyway,
556
could set 32 different penalty charge levels, connected only by a general code of practice. So not only would there by no nationwide standards for the operation of emissions testing, but, within the capital itself, penalty fine levels and operational guidelines would be decided by each individual borough, which I believe is unacceptable.
If the argument of the London boroughs is that emissions enforcement would be more effectively controlled and financed by local authorities than by the police and vehicles inspectorate, then surely that argument applies equally to our other great cities. It would therefore surely be preferable for national legislation to be introduced to deal with the issue. The Government have intimated that they might bring forward legislation of their own when the Environment Bill is debated in the Commons and I urge the Minister to take that course. I was disappointed to hear the quotation from the Minister's letter to my noble friend.
I now wish to deal with the most controversial section of the Bill: the proposal which would give local authority employees the power to stop vehicles on the public highway. At present this power can be exercised only by a police officer in uniform, under Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1968. There are very good reasons why that is so. Police officers have an authority which is recognised and respected by the public. The police are perceived to have the right to order your car to stop, in the same way that when motorists see a flashing blue light on a police vehicle they know they should move out of the way and let it pass. We must not allow the authority of our police to be diluted by giving away some of their fundamental and basic powers.
There is another important consideration to take on board. The proposal raises issues of safety and security, particularly for lone women drivers or drivers responsible for valuable loads. Anyone who has read the news stories of car-jacking and of criminals who steal valuables by smashing the windows of cars which are stopped at traffic lights or are stuck in traffic jams, will know that personal safety while on the move is a very real concern to many motorists. Many of those attacks occur in broad daylight. Of course, I am not suggesting that the councils' monitoring units would pose a threat, although motorists may well be bewildered, angry or frightened at being ordered to stop by a council official in a yellow jacket and a strange uniform; or, indeed, not even in a uniform at all.
Giving those officials the authority to stop vehicles, however, might well open a door to abuse by both opportunistic and organised criminals. The RAC—of which I have the honour to be a member of the public policy committee—and the AA have expressed their great concern at the potential risks to lone drivers. The Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association and the Confederation of Passenger Transport fear that the proposals would leave vans, trucks and buses more vulnerable to hijack and robbery. I hope that your Lordships' Select Committee will look most carefully at the proposals in that respect which are contained in the Bill. I should point out to my noble friend Lord Jenkin that we are not asking for the police

557
actually to carry out the tests; we are merely talking about the people who stop the vehicle—there needs to be, perhaps, only one policeman.
I said earlier that if it is decided that existing regulations are inadequate and that new legislation is needed, there are some key points which I would want to see included. I believe that it is essential that we set down in statute rules which ensure that the operation of emissions testing is fair and that the same standards apply for the whole country. Only three years ago Parliament enacted a major revision of the road traffic Acts, one of the purposes of which was to re-establish consistency in road traffic offences and penalties. It would be a mistake now to start unstitching that excellent work.
I turn now to the question of penalty charges. The Bill would allow initial penalty charges up to a maximum of £1,000 which is equivalent to a level 3 fine under the construction and use regulations. If the offender failed to rectify the problem, the council would have discretion to prosecute and impose fines of up to £5,000. I do not want to see draconian fines being handed out to motorists who are unaware that their cars are at fault and who would be alarmed to learn that they were unnecessarily contributing to air pollution. We should heed the example of the United States, where technological awareness and a recent national Clean Air Act have meant that all new cars now have to be fitted with an on-board diagnostic—the so-called "Green Box"—which informs the driver through a light on the dashboard when his car is exceeding accepted emissions limits. Over 80 per cent. of American motorists respond to the signal and take action to rectify the fault within the next 50 miles. The small minority who do nothing to improve the performance of their vehicle are then fined by the authorities. It seems to me that it would be sensible, in due course, to introduce on-board diagnostics to cars in the United Kingdom. There is no reason to believe that British motorists would not respond in the same responsible way as American drivers when advised that their cars are at fault. Initial fines should, therefore, be kept low to act as a prompt rather than a punishment. Stronger steps could then be taken through sharply rising fines if corrective action is not taken within a stipulated time limit. That approach would be consistent with other similar technical offences under the construction and use regulations.
It is important that any new legislation proposed by the Government should set out a uniform structure for penalty fines. That is something that the Bill fails to do. I have already described how the Bill would allow for 32 separate penalty charge levels. Such inconsistency in setting penalty charges is unacceptable. Another concern is that some councils might seek to use the new emissions enforcement powers to raise revenue for other areas of council spending. That must not be allowed to happen.
If we are serious about tackling emissions, there is a good case for dedicating revenues raised through enforcement to the financing of continued testing, which, as my noble friend suggested, could include paying for the time of the police officers who would
558
have to be present when vehicles are stopped. Treasury rules should be changed to allow that reimbursement to be additional to the core Home Office funding. Therefore, the Bill should include a clause which ring-fences that new revenue for emissions control. The aim of emission enforcement should be to improve the environment, not just to raise money.
As my noble friend said, I recognise that funding from that source may not be adequate if the levels of the initial penalty are kept low, as I believe they should be. However, I propose another solution to my noble friend, and to the Government. At present, revenue from parking has to be used by the local authority for a limited range of highway-related purposes. Could the Government not widen the scope of the permitted uses for parking revenue to include paying for emissions control measures? That would make new funds available and, indeed, give local authorities increased discretion. I urge my noble friend the Minister to include such provisions in the Environment Bill which is now before another place.
Standards must also be set for the training and qualifications of the people who will be carrying out the emissions testing. Officials of the Department of Transport Vehicles Inspectorate are trained to a high level and operate to rigorous guidelines when testing vehicles. Nowhere in the Bill is it made clear from what higher authority those authorised officers will receive certification.
Similarly, I am not satisfied that the operational guidelines for testing will be clear, or that the appeals procedure is either clear or fair. There are problems with the way that the Bill has been drafted which could potentially open up conflict between council officials enforcing the tests and drivers at the receiving end of penalty notices. It is also, in theory, possible for a driver to be in double jeopardy: once from a local authority enforcement officer, imposing one level of penalties, and once from the police imposing another under the construction and use regulations. Surely that cannot be right.
I turn finally to Clause 5, which deals with stationary vehicles. The intention of the Bill is clearly to prohibit the running of engines while a vehicle is stationary. But an engine can be left running when,
"it is required to be worked for purposes other than driving the vehicle".
That loosely-drafted phrase would seem to exempt a stationary bus or coach, which has its engine running to keep the engine working, or so the driver could argue. Yet those buses which have their engines ticking over while the driver eats his lunch are a major part of the problem described by my noble friend. I hope that the Select Committee will also look carefully at that point.
In conclusion, I should like to reiterate that sensible proposals for effective emissions testing, on a national basis, are important if we are to deal with air pollution in our towns and cities. Unfortunately, the Bill now before us does not achieve that objective. The role of the police in stopping vehicles must remain. That is an absolutely fundamental point of principle for which there is a great deal of support. If that means that alternative funding for police officers must be found, so

559
be it. I have briefly suggested—although, I hope, positively—how that could be done. I also hope that the Government will, before long, bring forward proposals which will resolve some of those problems. I trust that members of the Select Committee will look carefully at the points that I have made when the Bill is placed before them.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, perhaps I may echo the congratulations expressed by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding—and, indeed, to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton—on their new appointments. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, it is perhaps appropriate or apposite that he should be undertaking the promotion of the Bill this evening.
In his opening remarks, my noble friend Lord Jenkin referred to the previous debates we have had on the subject, most notably as regards Part II of the Bill. Indeed, it is that part of the Bill upon which I should like to concentrate tonight. We discussed the matter at fair length on 9th February on the sixth Committee day of the Environment Bill. I do not propose to reiterate the points I made on that occasion because they appear at col. 326 of Hansard of that day.
My noble friend said:
"I hope that the police will do more to combat real crime rather than stopping vehicles puffing out smoke".—[Official Report, 9/2/95; col. 329.]
I thought that was rather unkind of him. However, I did not take the matter up at the time. But he will know that the random stopping of motor cars, whether it be for puffing out smoke or for other reasons, gives police the opportunity to detect other serious crimes. Therefore I do not think this is particularly a question of wasting police time.
My noble friend also said in his opening remarks that during the passage of the Environment Bill—notably on 9th February and 9th March—his amendments received widespread support. What my noble friend did not say was that while there was some support given at that time, when my noble friend put the amendment to the House by way of a vote on 9th March your Lordships' House rejected the amendment by 89 to 56. That was a not inconsiderable majority. It is important that we recall that. Perhaps the primary reason for the rejection was the unhappiness that your Lordships felt with regard to the stopping powers. My noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara has discussed this matter on more than one occasion. I agree with his remarks and I do not wish to repeat comments other than perhaps to say that I remain fundamentally opposed to the introduction of a further army of officials who, I suppose, would wear some sort of uniform and have new and perhaps not widely recognised powers. There are too many of these people about already. They are confusing not only to people in London but to people in other cities too. Even if a new force were to be created for the stopping of motor vehicles for the purpose of emission testing, there would be dangers to the stoppers. We read too often, sadly, of cases where the police in pursuance of their proper duties seek to stop a motor car on suspicion of
560
something or other and are shot at or attacked. Of course no one likes that. However, one has to recognise that the police have been given a long and thorough training to deal with such activity. I cannot see a private army of stoppers, employed by the combined local authorities or indeed by any other local authorities, having the wisdom or perhaps even the physical power. That is an additional reason for not empowering another army of people.
I rest my case largely on the existing law being better enforced. Indeed the Freight Transport Association, together with the Road Haulage Association and the other motoring organisations have petitioned against Part II of the Bill. The FTA says that it,
"recognises the current pressures on police resources but believes there are a number of ways by which police presence at such checks could be funded".
I shall not take up the time of your Lordships tonight on that matter. No doubt the FTA in its evidence to your Lordships' Select Committee will outline its ideas in that regard.
I have spent most of my life involved with the motor industry, and to some extent the haulage industry. I recognise that some commercial vehicles, coaches, taxis and indeed motor cars are gross polluters. I recognise that we have passed the stage where something must be done about that. For one thing I would prefer to see the emission check in the MOT test carried out on a vehicle's second anniversary because it is not only some older vehicles but also some ill-maintained vehicles which can give problems. An ill-maintained 18 month-old vehicle with 30,000 miles on the clock—that is not an impossibility—can also be a gross polluter. If what I suggest were adopted it would tighten up the scheme and it would not cost the operator any more than the present arrangements.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara that if local authorities are to be given the authority to operate a testing station, there has to be a national level of standards and a national level of penalties. One cannot envisage one local authority—my noble friend spoke of 32 in London alone—or 60 or 70 local authorities imposing their own standards and their own penalties. I support my noble friend on that point. I was also disappointed to learn from my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding of the letter of 11th April from my noble friend Lord Ullswater. I would have hoped that his remarks to us during the passage of the Environment Bill that the Department of Transport was taking certain steps as a matter of urgency would have shown, as it were, a green light for further and more comprehensive national legislation to deal with this problem. That matter is a disappointment. I hope that my noble friend who is to reply to the debate can give us more encouragement or say something about a timescale.
I would like to see greater efforts made to deal with this problem. I am not averse to the worst vehicles which are gross polluters and which cannot be reasonably repaired and brought back to a reasonable standard being taken off the road. That may be hard on a certain group of people but we cannot go on in the way we have been doing in the past few years. The life of a motor car now is something like 11 to 14 years and

561
we cannot afford that kind of timescale. I would like to see a national scale of penalties and national testing standards within the framework of the national law. I hope that, as my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara said in his closing remarks, your Lordships' Select Committee will have regard to those points when it deals with the matter.
8.9 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I make it clear that I welcome this Bill and support the whole of it. In doing so I am glad of the opportunity to welcome the formation of the Association of London Government. Throughout the past 10 years on almost every occasion when, as a London councillor, I have discussed London matters with representatives of business and other organisations, I have been told how much better it would be if there were one voice speaking for London local authorities. I am delighted that we now have that. I join others in congratulating two noble Lords on their appointments as joint presidents of the association.
With regard to vehicle emissions, it is self-evident that action is required, together with steps to enforce that action. The Government have acknowledged the need to act but so far have been unable to commit themselves on how they will achieve those ends. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, made it clear during the course of the Environment Bill that he was sympathetic and was extremely open when the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and I went to see him to talk about this subject. I was grateful for that. We said then that it would be far better if the emissions provisions extended beyond London. However, if there is no possibility of providing for them beyond London let us at least achieve what we can for our capital city. Too often, as we know, the best is the enemy of the good. The capital is very important; let us lead the way.
It also occurred to me that it would have been better if the recent photographs of the Secretaries of State for the Environment and Transport crouching next to exhaust pipes, exhorting the public to ensure that their emissions are not noxious, were backed up by enforcement powers.
I agree with noble Lords who have indicated the importance of demystifying the subject. At the risk of confirming the reputation of women drivers, I admit that it was only when I asked my garage to check emissions from my car, which has a catalytic converter, that I was told that a green light would light up on my dashboard if there were a problem. I did not know that, but perhaps I am not good enough at reading the handbook. A couple of days ago, having had my car tested, I realised after a little scratching of my head that the computer printout I had was not a calculation of parts and VAT but was a slightly idiosyncratic reading of the gases that were emitted. I have not yet been able to establish whether that was good or bad. I mention that to flesh out my point that it is extremely important that the ordinary driver ought to know what he or she is doing to the atmosphere and be able to translate the information into everyday language.
562
I recognise the anxieties that have been expressed about vulnerability in the event of stopping and checking by others than the police. In relation to the dangers of imposters, it occurred to me to wonder whether an offence would be committed if an authorised officer were impersonated. I am fairly certain that it is an offence to impersonate a police officer. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, knows whether it would be an offence to impersonate an authorised officer under the Bill.
As a woman who frequently drives alone, I am well aware of the dangers of carjacking, breaking into cars, and so on. I am quite frightened about that. If I were signalled to stop at a point which looked dodgy I think that I would take the risk of driving on and not stopping. There must be ways of ensuring that the operation looks authoritative and proper.
I also believe that we should not have to rely on the police force to enforce everything. The police have many important matters to occupy their time. There are many offences with which only they can deal and there is much preventive action which only they can take. In the absence of funding for the police to deal with stopping vehicles to allow emissions to be checked, it is perfectly proper to deal with the matter in the same way as parking enforcement.
I recall that during the course of the Environment Bill some concerns were expressed about rights of appeal. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that the provisions for appeal in respect of parking enforcement in London are working quite well under the new regime. I am sure that there will be public comments that local authorities will try to make money out of the operation in the same way as allegations were made that they tried to take money out of parking enforcement. However, I am certain that their ambition will be to work themselves out of a job in this particular area. Incidentally, I support the comment about some of the proceeds being recycled towards the police if that will help the operation.
With regard to funding, it seems that the Treasury and the Home Office want to have their cake and eat it, or perhaps not to use their cake and not to allow others to eat it either. If there were other ways of achieving the objective I would support them, but there are not; nor have other mechanisms been worked out. Therefore, I warmly support the provisions of the Bill relating to vehicle emissions.
I should like to say a word on two other topics covered by the Bill. I support the proposals relating to bus lanes. That issue is linked to air quality because, provided that the buses themselves are properly maintained, the more buses are used then the fewer cars there will be on our roads. The use of remote cameras should prove an effective deterrent. That seems to have been the experience with regard to speed cameras and cameras at traffic lights. I believe that that experience will be replicated.
Turning to car boot sales, one always learns something during the course of any proceedings in this House. I now discover that the collective noun for buyers and sellers is a "concourse". The problems which have been identified are the very real problems of traffic

563
and disturbance, although there are many more problems with regard to car boot sales which cannot be addressed in the Bill. I am thinking in particular of the theft (and I use the term deliberately) of copyright in the pirating of records, videos and magazines. The loss to British industry runs at many millions of pounds.
Therefore, I welcome the requirement for names and addresses to be displayed at such sales. I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell the House whether the names and addresses will have to be displayed at individual pitches, literally on the car boots, rather than simply listed at the sale. If he is not able to give an answer tonight I shall understand. This issue is particularly important. There is a risk of unsafe goods being sold at such sales where the seller is, by definition, mobile and may not easily be found when the sale is over.
I have two final questions for the noble Lord. Will it be possible for a local authority to refuse a licence if it is not possible for adequate arrangements to be made within the terms of Clause 20(4) (b)? Secondly, what are the views of the magistrates, to whom an appeal can be made? In giving magistrates powers to deal with appeals, are they able to give an order for compensation if a licence has been refused? If that were the case, I would feel ambivalent on that point.
Having raised those few questions, I wish the Bill well. I know that Bills of this type do not necessarily move as swiftly as others through Parliament, but I hope that this Bill will move as swiftly and successfully as is practicable.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, first, I acknowledge with appreciation the kind words about the joint presidency of the new body for London local government. It was referred to by my fellow joint president, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, whom I have known for many years. At one time he could have been my Member of Parliament for Enfield, east, but he was poached by another place where he served with distinction. We have many common interests, not least our desire to serve the people of London. He and I were grateful to be given the opportunity jointly to provide a voice for London local government. We both look forward to occasions such as today to demonstrate that when it comes to the interests of local government, not only both sides of the House but all sides of the House are involved. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also demonstrated that.
There is no political animus in this subject, as I shall show and as has been pointed out. There is a long history of anxiety on the subject and the Select Committee which will examine the legislation in due course will be well served in reading the well informed debate. The contributions have been balanced and I do not believe that a single nonsensical point has been made throughout the hour or longer, all points have been serious. Because this is a private measure, I do not speak on behalf of my party but broadly on behalf of my interests in local government. I ask the House to acknowledge that.
564
The Bill is the product of the research and thought of 32 London boroughs. One may make much play of those whom they represent and on whose behalf they speak, but the Minister and the Select Committee would do well to recognise that after the difficult period that has faced London local government, we now have proposals which have been endorsed by the two bodies. They speak on behalf of their constituent members; we now have one body which speaks on behalf of its constituent members. Thus the case so splendidly put by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is endorsed by those who modestly seek to represent the views of Londoners.
I should also make it clear that whatever the other interests to be served, the London local government bodies which I know are concerned with the health and hygiene of people who live and work in London as much as with any other interests. It is not a dirty phrase to say that one speaks on behalf of certain interests, nor has that been the case this evening. The interests on whose behalf I speak or with whom I claim credit to he associated are primarily concerned with the health and hygiene of people who live and work in London.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, it is right to remind both ourselves and the Select Committee that although Part II of the Bill is controversial, there are other good parts. I acknowledge that Members of the House who spoke forcefully against the provisions of Part II recognise that if other parts of the Bill do not have their approval, they do not take exception to them. London government and the mechanism whereby Westminster City Council has been the agent have a good record over the years in producing legislation which is peculiar to the capital city.
We remind ourselves that in the Bill there are powers to enforce bus lanes, the licensing of car boot sales, amendments to existing entertainment licensing as well as other powers. In recent years, the London local authorities legislation has covered such matters as night cafe licensing, street trading, abandoned shopping trolleys, crime prevention, reconnection of gas, water and electricity services, special treatment premises, distribution containers, burglar alarms, and scaffolding licences. Each of those is important to the lives of people who live and work in London. I have no doubt that if Londoners were invited to say which aspect of living and working, particularly in the centre of London, affected them adversely daily, they would say that it was congestion, the problem of transport and ancillary matters.
We have probably reached a situation where the arguments that have been deployed in support of Part II are valid and have good authority. The Select Committee on Transport in the House of Commons recently made a report, Transport-related air pollution in London. Among other things it stated:
"We also recommend that the Government should give favourable consideration to a possible proposal from the Association of London Authorities and the London Boroughs Association for private legislation to give local authorities in the capital the power to carry out emissions checks on vehicles and to serve the driver, where necessary, with an enforcement notice requiring remedial action to be taken. Such a system could be financed through a fixed penalty charge".

565
That was the view of the Commons Select Committee on Transport. In my view, that is a reasonable argument to pray in aid.
The Department of the Environment and the Home Office were consulted during the drafting of the Bill. The Department of the Environment made its support public in its air quality strategy, Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge, which was launched at the beginning of this year. The report said:
"the Government welcomes the LBA initiative in bringing forward proposals in the London Local Authorities Bill to extend kerbside emissions testing powers to London local authorities. The proposals may present an opportunity to increase the level of roadside emissions testing in London, supplementing testing already carried out by the Vehicle Inspectorate, and may provide a blueprint for future initiatives elsewhere in the country."
On top of that, we had valuable debates on the Environment Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, served the Committee well by giving us an update on government thinking. I do not believe that there is any argument but that we would all prefer national legislation, uniform application, and so on. I do not disagree; but we do not have a perfect world. Frankly we should not wait until either global resources or manpower mean that the will is universally felt before we take an initiative. The way our legislation is treated, London local government is able by itself to produce a plan or scheme which we believe will meet the problems.
However, those who spoke against the provisions in Part II quite rightly drew our attention to the problems that will be created. If we solve one problem, then we create others. I do not argue that there is only one solution, I believe that the Select Committee will be presented with a number of alternatives. To the best of my knowledge the London local government authorities will be perfectly willing to consider and listen to such alternatives, provided the desire to deal with the pollution is dealt with.
My experience before coming to Parliament was with the Co-operative Movement and often the idea of an amalgamation or merger between a group of co-operative societies was generally accepted. That is, until someone said: "We'll start by amalgamating society number one with society number two". "Oh no", one would say, "we are in favour of amalgamating all 12". We would say: "Yes, but you've got to start somewhere". "Well, don't start with us. We will merge one into 12, but we are not prepared to be picked off", would be the reply.
The problem for the Co-operative Movement and many similar democratic organisations is that where democracy is a vital force, it enables people to say no, even if that is ultimately to the detriment of their interests. I echo the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, who, without a direct responsibility in this matter, is here tonight to listen to the arguments and perhaps take them forward in some other way.
I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, put forward the powerful argument that although provisions were already in place, they were not being enforced
566
because of a lack of resources. He asked how we were to find the additional resources required. The promoters of the Bill will be able to respond to that. In fact, they will be obliged to come forward with arguments.
The Bill may be queried substantially not with regard to testing but as regards stopping. If the great solution is that that should only be done by police, then the resource implications must be considered. We must examine how the problem of providing the resources can be tackled. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, pointed out, there is an ideal solution; but there are also half-way houses: ring-fencing of the income and enforcement provision only to the extent that the money raised can be used for that purpose.
I cannot believe that the Select Committee and those who will plead before it are not able to come up with some solutions. In the absence of positive proposals from the Government about solving the problem of devoting to this area sufficient resources in terms of police or traffic wardens, there is a strong case for retaining the local authority stopping power. I very much hope that the valuable provisions of the Bill will not be rejected or even that Part II is rejected simply because we have not examined how to overcome the problems.
I believe that the petitioners against the Bill are perfectly justified in bringing forward their arguments. They argue from a particular point of view which is substantially that of the motorist and the industry. I speak here with sympathy for their problems but primarily for the interests of Londoners, those who live and work in London. I cannot believe that, despite the problems which have been brought to our attention, problems of resources and priorities, especially with regard to the police, we shall not find a solution that is acceptable to all.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and every other speaker in the debate tonight. They have alerted the Government and the Select Committee to a genuine problem. I believe that they may come back at a later stage with a solution.
8.33 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it may be helpful if I give the House the Government's views on the Bill at this stage. We broadly welcome the proposals in the Bill for the improvement and development of local government services in London. We are sympathetic to the aims of the particular proposals of the Bill to give London authorities the power to enforce vehicle emission standards. We are still actively considering whether proposals could be brought forward on a national basis in the Environment Bill. However, I am unable to give any commitment in that respect at this stage.
However, there are certain aspects of the Bill about which we have reservations. In particular, we wish to highlight our concerns about the proposal to extend to authorised council officials the power to stop vehicles in order to enable the emissions tests to be carried out. This proposal raises a number of difficult issues, such as what powers the council should have to deal with

567
vehicles which refuse to stop and what the council's response should be to possible unrelated offences, such as drink-driving.
There are other aspects of the proposals which raise complex issues, including the availability of police resources to assist in local authorities' enforcement efforts, which again the Government are still actively pursuing. There are also a number of points of detail to be discussed with the agents for the promoters.
We have considered the proposal to deal with motorists who leave their engines running unnecessarily. We believe that the provisions of the clause will present possible enforcement problems. A similar offence already exists in relation to noise from stationary vehicles. I understand that experience has shown that in practice that offence is very difficult to prosecute and indeed very difficult to prove. The Government do not wish to see the same difficulties arising in respect of emissions from vehicles. We do not support that proposal.
The Government welcome in principle the proposal in the Bill to allow local authorities to take an active role in the enforcement of bus lanes, using camera technology. We believe, however, that it will first be necessary to determine whether that camera technology will work and whether it is acceptable to the public. We are willing to discuss with the promoters how best to take forward the proposals in this part of the Bill.
With the shortest speech this evening, I end by saying that the Committee will be in a far better position to consider all those points and hear expert evidence on them. Therefore, I hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and proceed to its Select Committee stage in the usual way.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, in winding up this brief debate, let me say how grateful I am to all those who have taken part. The good news is that everybody apparently agrees that this Bill should go to a Select Committee. The less good news is that there are clearly a number of obstacles, which those on whose behalf I moved the Second Reading will have to address and overcome. I am in the happy position that a good deal of what might have fallen into my concluding speech has already been said with great eloquence by my fellow joint president of the ALG, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. It would clearly be a work of supererogation if I were to repeat many of the points which he made.
However, I was asked a number of specific questions. To many of them I have to say that the answer does not apparently lie in the Bill or in my briefing. I shall have to ask the ALG whether it can perhaps provide me with some of the answers.
I believe that we all share the anxiety to which the stopping power gives rise. We should all very much like to see an alternative which made it unnecessary for local authority officials to have that power. I am sure that some of the difficulties could be overcome. The suggestion that there would be 32 different systems with 32 different penalties and 32 different standards is—if I
568
may say so with the utmost respect to my noble friend Lord Brabazon—a little fanciful. The Bill would provide for a standard system of penalties. The existing standards under the construction and use regulations are the standards by which vehicles will he tested. They apply not only throughout London but are the same standards that apply nationally. I do not regard it as impossible that if we have to go down the route of having local authority officials doing the stopping, they, like traffic wardens, could be supplied with an easily recognisable and distinctive uniform. I take the point that it should be an offence for anybody to impersonate them, just as it is an offence to impersonate a policeman or, I believe, a traffic warden. I feel that some of the difficulties can be addressed.
The real point has been brought out extremely well in almost every speech; namely, how much better it would be if the police could have the stopping power and the necessary resources could be found and ring-fenced from the proceeds of the charges and fines that will be made. That seems to me to be the most appropriate source. I hope that I was not being unduly optimistic about the words that my noble friend Lord Goschen used in his brief but extremely helpful address when he said that the Government were still actively considering national legislation and were concerned about the power and the availability of police resources.
If we can just go that one step further and recognise, for instance, as in the waste tip charges that were brought into existence by the Budget and the Finance Bill, that you can have revenue in an environmental sense to be used for other environmental purposes, so we could use the fines here to pay specifically for extra police resources to be deployed for these duties. My noble friend was absolutely right. These are points to be discussed with the promoters.
I fear I cannot he quite so optimistic over what he said about the difficulties of enforcing legislation to switch off engines. He returned to the same argument that we had from my noble friend Lord Ullswater on the Environment Bill on the question of noise. With great respect, these are two totally different things. The problem with noise enforcement is that you have to establish a qualitative test: is the noise such as to be causing a nuisance? One can understand that environmental health officers and local authorities could have great difficulty in establishing that with sufficient certainty so as to bring a case in order to penalise somebody who is not switching off his engine.
In this case it is a simple question of fact: is the engine running or is it not? Is it running unnecessarily or is it not? My noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara asked whether some tightening up is needed in the drafting. That may well be, but it is not like a noise issue. It is not a qualitative test. It is a straightforward test of whether or not the engine is running. These queues of lorries waiting to take refuse away and the queues of buses waiting for their passengers to come back—these are profound nuisances. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, during the debates on the Environment Bill, talked about the bus station in his constituency, so I hope we can scotch this argument that because the noise

569
regulations have been difficult to enforce therefore the proposals in this Bill about switching off an engine cannot he supported.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked a number of very specific questions. She particularly asked about names and addresses being given in regard to boot sales. Here I would refer to the Bill, which provides in Clause 22(1) that,
"Any person who holds an occasional sale shall display his full name and business address and the full name and business address of the person appointed to receive and answer complaints about the occasional sale in a prominent position at the place where the sale is held".
It is specifically the organiser whose name and address must be there. If somebody actually has his car boot open, or whatever they do at car boot sales, and is actually selling goods, it is up to the purchaser to make sure that he knows who he is dealing with. The Bill provides for the organiser to do that.
The noble Baroness also asked whether a local authority can refuse a licence. As I read the Bill, referring to the granting of a licence we have the clause dealing with cases where the borough council has not refused to grant a licence and therefore shall be deemed to have granted a licence. From that I assume that a local authority can refuse to grant a licence if the conditions have not been met or if on a previous occasion the conditions have not been complied with.
Lastly, I come to the points made by my noble friends Lord Lucas of Chilworth and Lord Brahazon of Tara. I am grateful to them for recognising that the proper place to hammer out these arguments is in a Select Committee. I am quite sure that is right and I am also
570
sure that the great majority of points they have made can he met with the support of the Government in recognising that there should be charges which are not fines but which are civil debts accruing to the local authority concerned and which can then be deployed in meeting costs, including police costs, incurred in enforcement. That must be the right way forward. If my noble friends on the Front Bench are having some difficulties with some of their colleagues because this represents what might be thought of as a further move in the direction of what is sometimes called the hypothecation of revenues or the question of the altering of priorities in respect of police manpower, in the end we really have to decide: do we want to clean up London's air? Westminster says that there could he a 25 per cent. improvement as a result of the powers contained in the Bill. Is that something we want? I think that if one were to put that question to Londoners now—those who walk the streets and who go about their business in the centre of London and in busy shopping areas day after day—the answer would be an overwhelming "Yes, let's get on with it".
Therefore, let us give the Bill a Second Reading and remit it to a Committee. Let the Committee then address the many concerns that have been raised perfectly properly this evening, in the hope that we can eventually send the Bill to another place rather more swiftly than the previous London Local Authorities Bill which was introduced, I think, three years ago and has only just gone to another place.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
House adjourned at a quarter before nine o'clock.