Lords Sitting of 9 May 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 Chester.
Lord Carew Lord Carew—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his Father.

Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I have to acquaint the House that Her Majesty has appointed General Sir Edward Jones KCB, CBE, to be Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, in succession to Admiral Sir Richard Thomas KCB, KCVO, OBE, and that he is at the Door ready to receive your Lordships' commands.
Whereupon the House directed that he be called in. Accordingly he was called in and officiated in his place.

Tributes to Sir Richard Thomas
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, today we wish Godspeed to Admiral Sir Richard Thomas, who has served the House faithfully during the three-and-a-half years he has been Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
Those years have seen substantial increases in Black Rod's responsibilities. Indeed, Sir Richard took up his post in January 1992, just as the House was beginning to implement the Ibbs recommendations, which, as noble Lords will remember, suggested that both Houses assume responsibility for their own services. His burden was further increased when, in April of the same year, he shouldered a greater responsibility for House of Lords works.
2
Black Rod is perhaps most associated in the public mind with ceremonial duties both in the Palace of Westminster and in respect of his work at the Garter Ceremony. However, I emphasise the administrative side of his work because, as so often, perhaps the most onerous are those tasks which remain hidden from the public eye.
Black Rod's duties are as varied as those of any office holder in the Palace of Westminster. In addition to those that I have already mentioned, they range from matters of order and security to the regulation of visitors. However, it is in the realm of accommodation and works that we shall remember Sir Richard most. His enthusiasm for carrying forward improvements in both areas was reassuring, and to a marked degree they will remain as his enduring memorial: the restored stonework, culminating in the final burnishing, of the Victoria Tower; the splendidly restored Nos. 6 and 7 Old Palace Yard; the new parliamentary data and video network, still yet to be made operational; the conversion of Black Rod's Garden. The House should be grateful to Sir Richard for his perseverance and the part that he played in all these projects.
I for one will always remember Sir Richard for something else: his courage. The fortitude with which he faced the consequences of his stroke, and the example that he has given to all of us who might one day be cursed with the same illness, have been—I can put it no higher than this—in the best traditions of both Wales and the Royal Navy. The House will salute him for it.
Therefore, on behalf of the whole House, as Sir Richard leaves to spend more time in his garden and with his devoted family, I wish him good health and a long and happy retirement.
Finally, I also take this opportunity to welcome General Sir Edward Jones as his successor. I know that he will fill the post with the greatest of distinction, and that your Lordships will give him a warm welcome. But above all, perhaps he will allow me to say that I hope beyond anything else that he will enjoy his time with us and find the job a happy and fulfilling one.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to support the warm tributes that the Leader of the House has

3
just expressed. But perhaps I may first, on behalf of the whole House, convey to him, as the Minister responsible for the weekend's activities, our congratulations on the way in which they were organised. I think they went well. In relation to last Friday, somebody used the word "seamless". I believe that it was. It was in the best traditions of Parliament as a whole. We thank him for it and for the rest of his work.
It is a very great pleasure indeed to support the warm tribute paid by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to Sir Richard Thomas. The post of Black Rod must be a very difficult one. There are two distinct sets of functions attached to it. There are the administrative functions, to which the noble Viscount referred, in particular in the fields of security, accommodation and looking after the building. That responsibility has been particularly important in the past few years.
There are, too, very important ceremonial functions, particularly on great state occasions when this House is involved. It is difficult to get the balance right. I am sure that the House will feel that Sir Richard, given the position in which he found himself, got that balance as right as it could have been. We admire greatly the way in which he discharged both those functions. He discharged them with a distinction and, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said, with great courage. We all particularly admire the courage with which he has carried on his duties since he became ill.
Sir Richard was always helpful and kind to the Opposition. I cannot say that everybody connected with this House is always helpful and kind to the Opposition; but certainly he was, and we are indeed grateful to him for it. We wish him and Lady Thomas a long and happy retirement.
As the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said, during Sir Richard's time in office much was achieved. On behalf of the Opposition, I thank him for his efforts on behalf of the House as a whole. Finally, I take this opportunity to welcome Sir Richard's successor, General Sir Edward Jones, and to wish him well. We look forward to working with him in the future. I hope that he too will treat the Opposition with kindness and consideration.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, my memories of Black Rods go back to Sir Brian Horrocks, who, I believe, took office in 1949. I can think of nobody since who has so splendidly looked the part of Black Rod as has Admiral Sir Richard Thomas. It was therefore a peculiar and bitter tragedy that he was struck down so soon after taking office. As the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal so eloquently said, we have all greatly admired the courage with which Sir Richard fought back.
I personally will retain as a vivid and special memory the sight last Friday morning, in Westminster Hall, of Sir Richard getting triumphantly and at the same time elegantly to the top of that long and exposed flight of steps. Fate has cruelly deprived us of a notable public
4
servant of Crown and Parliament. We lose greatly by his departure. We ask him to take our respect and affection into his retirement.
Lady Hylton-Foster: My Lords, we on the Cross-Benches also bid farewell to Admiral Sir Richard Thomas, and at the same time endorse the tributes and thanks that have already been expressed. Sir Richard came with a distinguished record of service in the Royal Navy and, having held such senior appointments in NATO, he faced a different type of challenge when he came to the House as Black Rod. First, there is the shortage of accommodation for all of us and the staff; there was the preparation for the wonderful commemoration ceremony held in Westminster Hall last Friday; and there were the arrangements for the alterations to the West Wing, among many other things.
Sadly, nearly two years ago Sir Richard suffered a severe stroke. Those who saw him at that time and understood the extent of his disability were amazed at his dogged determination to regain much of his mobility and clarity of mind in order to return to his normal duties. In a short period of time and with the support of his office, he succeeded in many achievements, including the pedestrian crossing, which I understand is about to be put into operation and which will be a blessing for many years to come.
We commend his courage in adversity. We wish Sir Richard and Lady Thomas every happiness on the road ahead. At the same time we extend a warm welcome to General Sir Edward Jones and hope that he will be extremely happy in this House.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, to some extent I and my colleagues on this Bench are elusive. We come and go on duty in short bursts and thus must cause considerable trouble to Black Rod and his staff.
On behalf of my colleagues I express our gratitude to Black Rod and to the members of his staff who, time and again, patiently answer our questions. In particular, we pay tribute to Sir Richard's very high standard of commitment. Commitment is often thin on the ground in our society and thus we admire it, recognise it, and salute it.
We also place on public record our appreciation of his personal care and the charming way in which he has dealt with this House and its Members. We wish him and his family much grace and blessing and a measure of health that will take him on for many years to come. In expressing our appreciation, we welcome General Sir Edward Jones to the post. We look forward to his help and hope that we on this Bench do not cause him too much trouble.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
The Agricultural Tenancies Act.

BBC Charter and Agreement
2.57 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure that the new Charter and Agreement between the BBC and the Department of National Heritage will apply exactly the same high standards of impartiality to the corporation as are applied by the Independent Television Commission under Section 6 of the Broadcasting Act.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor): My Lords, the Government intend that the obligation on the BBC to observe due impartiality will be stated in the Agreement. The wording will follow very closely the formulation used in Section 6 of the Broadcasting Act 1990.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer, and for making clear that we shall have a further occasion on which to debate this matter in this Chamber. I hope that all parts of the House will join in.
Can my noble friend say whether the Representation of the People Act 1983, already somewhat out of date, which lays down that there should be at least 25 working days between a broadcast with political consequences and an election—whether local elections or a general election—is supervised? If so, is it supervised by the BBC? The Clause 4 debate was conducted five days before the local elections, not 25 days as laid down in the Act. I am not clear where the responsibility for monitoring lies.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Representation of the People Act 1983 has a narrow purpose. It is designed to prevent an election candidate taking part in a broadcast about his or her constituency without the consent of other candidates. Broadcasting a programme which breaches the statute is an unlawful act and enforcement of the requirements is therefore a matter for the courts and not for the Government. However, the Act provides no criminal sanction against broadcasters. The courts may issue an injunction to prevent an unlawful broadcast. In drawing up the code on impartiality, which gives guidance on the rules to be observed, the BBC must take account of any Act of Parliament which is relevant to its duties.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the duty of impartiality for public service broadcasters is at the heart of their obligations to informed democracy? Is he aware also that the BBC's judgment in these matters seems to have gone badly to pot recently? Does he remember that it was ready to give the Prime Minister the rights of "Panorama" on the eve of the Scottish local elections which had to be stopped by the Scottish courts? When it came to the Clause 4 debate by the Labour Party, the BBC bent over backwards under Tory pressure, so much so that it cut short Mr. Tony Blair's final speech. Is it too much to hope that when the new Charter and Agreement are finally in operation the BBC's self-confidence and wisdom will be restored?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, mentioned the "Panorama" programme. I understand that that may be the subject of further action in the courts and therefore it would be wrong for me to comment on the facts of the case. However, the BBC producers' guidelines are designed to help producers stay within the BBC's obligation to be duly impartial. They must have regard to those guidelines. It is for the BBC's governors to ensure that they do. For the avoidance of doubt, the new Agreement will require the BBC governors to draw up a code as to the observance of the rules in exactly the same way as the ITC presently does for commercial broadcasters.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, can my noble friend say—I am not clear from his Answer—who is responsible under the present arrangements for monitoring the impartiality of the BBC? Also, who is responsible for initiating such action as can be taken in the event of clear breaches of that impartiality?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is the responsibility of the governors of the BBC to ensure that it keeps to the terms of its Charter and Agreement. In regard to Section 93 of the Representation of the People Act, which covers elections and broadcasts, it would be a matter for the prosecuting authorities to take any action if they felt that there had been a breach of the statute.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, can the noble Viscount inform the House what, if any, are the sanctions that can be imposed when the so-called "guidelines" are flagrantly breached, and by whom they are imposed?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the governors of the BBC must ensure that their guidelines are adhered to by the producers. That is subject to the Agreement between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage and the BBC. My right honourable friend must ensure that the Agreement is kept.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I suspect that the difference between impartiality and partiality often lies in the eye of the beholder. Can the Minister assure the House that ahead of the next general election there will be no efforts by senior members of the party opposite to intimidate the BBC in the way that occurred before the last two general elections?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, Ministers have as much right as anyone else to point out to the BBC instances where they feel that it has failed to meet the high standards we expect of it. Having said that, we must remember that the BBC is a robust institution. It has an annual income of £1.8 billion; it employs 25,000 people; it broadcasts 300,000 hours of programmes in this country each year; and it reaches over 90 per cent. of all households.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, without wishing to enter into the merits of any specific case, can my noble friend say whether it is acceptable that there should appear to be a different form of dispensation on either side of the Border?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend draws me on the difference between English and Scottish law. I am afraid that I cannot answer his question. If I may, I shall write to my noble friend.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is it not disingenuous of the noble Viscount to say that Ministers have as much right as anyone else to make representations to the BBC when in fact Ministers who telephone the BBC get straight through to the director general while other humble mortals have to make do with the duty officer?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I never manage to get through to anyone but the duty officer.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does what my noble friend said in relation to sanctions on the BBC being exercised only by the Government confirm my suspicion that the Broadcasting Complaints Commission has no powers whatever to alter the standard or content of broadcasts by the BBC? Will that block to an official watchdog and monitor be removed in the new Charter?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we see a continuing important role for a merged Broadcasting Standards Council and Broadcasting Complaints Commission in policing standards in two areas of particular public concern: the question of taste and decency and the fair treatment of individuals. These powers relate to both the BBC and commercial broadcasters.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that while I am second to none in my respect for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, I believe that it is a very dangerous road to go down to be suggesting sanctions against the BBC? There are a variety of opinions about various programmes but the independence of the BBC should be respected by Government and by Opposition at all times.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. What matters is that we get the Charter of the BBC and the Agreement between the BBC and the Government absolutely right. Your Lordships' House will have the opportunity to debate both those instruments.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, to go back to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, does the Minister agree that regulatory bodies which are unable to impose sanctions must have a dubious place in the regulatory system? What is the point of having them?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the BBC governors have sanctions over their own employees. It is up to the BBC and the board of management to make sure that their employees follow their guidance.

Inter-Governmental Conference 1996
3.1 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in good time before the Agenda of the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference is settled, they will
8
convene an all-party conference in the United Kingdom to discuss the desirability of incorporating in the agenda such amendments to the convergence criteria set out in the Maastricht Treaty as will provide for the avoidance of an unacceptable level of unemployment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, no. The Government have no intention, at the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference, of seeking to amend the "convergence criteria" contained in the Treaty on European Union, as agreed at Maastricht.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that there is growing opinion throughout Europe, not confined to any political spectrum, that the monetary conditions laid down in the Maastricht Treaty under the protocol are not helping to cure unemployment and in fact may increase it. Will he bear in mind that the policies contained in the employment White Paper of 1944, which was drawn up after collaboration between the two main parties, were successful in this country for at least 20 years after the war, until the oil crisis? Does he not think that, with the United Kingdom being one of the most powerful nations in Europe, it is up to us, through the existing party leadership and through the Opposition as well, to give Europe and the countries of Europe the lead that they require?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I could agree with much of what the noble Lord said. I could agree that many countries are having problems with unemployment. I remind him that unemployment in this country is coming down and has been coming down for very many months indeed—and far earlier than has been the case in most other countries in Europe. If the noble Lord seeks further criteria for the convergence criteria in Article 109 he will know that right at the very end it refers to examining the development of unit labour costs. That is a point at which other countries could look. They could also look at the inflexible labour markets with which they are burdened— with which, fortunately, we are not burdened in this country.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not the truth of the matter that paper guarantees are not what we want in this sphere? What we want is a sustained and sustainable level of demand for goods and services.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is absolutely right. We also require good government to deliver exactly the right conditions so that people can provide the goods and services that are necessary to lower unemployment.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that an all-party group to deal with the very matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, was convened? It was the European Communities Committee of your Lordships' House, to which the noble Lord made a notable contribution. The committee came to the conclusion, after close examination of the White Paper from the European Commission, that there was no need to change the convergence criteria relating to unemployment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord

9
Bruce, will have noted. I look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, who is about to make a further intervention, explaining exactly what he meant.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the recollection of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, as to what the Select Committee report contains is remarkably short? It does not contain the reassurance the noble Lord requires. Is he further aware that unemployment in Europe is a most serious problem and that unless some endeavour to reduce it is undertaken there will be social unrest not only in Europe but perhaps even in our own country?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall not join the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Thomson, in their argument about the contents of Select Committee reports. I am sure that all noble Lords can go along to the Library, have a look at the report and come to their own conclusions. Other than that, I have to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. Unemployment is very, very important. It is a serious problem in Europe. The fact is that it is decreasing in this country because of our flexible labour market. Most of our friends have problems because they do not have the same flexibility in their labour markets. One has only to look at the extra labour taxes as a percentage of hourly labour costs imposed on employers in Europe. In this country they are 15.5 per cent.; in Germany, 22.8 per cent.; in Belgium, 27 per cent.; and in France, 28.8 per cent. No wonder unemployment in those countries is that much higher.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord give an assurance that at the Inter-Governmental Conference the Government will resist any move from any quarter which would in any way diminish the ability of Her Majesty's Government and properly elected Parliament to run the economy of this country in accordance with the judgment of the Government and Parliament elected by the British people?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord's question goes slightly beyond the Question on the Order Paper. But I believe that the assurance he requires has been made quite clearly by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, in respect of the Maastricht criterion, which limits government fiscal deficits to 3 per cent. of GDP, do the Government consider that figure to include, or exclude, public sector capital expenditure?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the level of the deficit is an important matter. We would seek to bring it down. It is coming down in this country and we are one of the very few countries which, in terms of its deficit and overall debt, might be somewhere near meeting the criterion by the year 1997. That does not mean that all the criteria as set out in Article 109 will be met. As regards the noble Lord's detailed question, I would prefer to write to him.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord of the question I asked. Does the Maastricht criterion limiting government fiscal deficits to 3 per cent. of GDP include, or exclude, public sector capital expenditure? If the noble Lord does not understand the
10
Maastricht criterion, perhaps it would be a good idea to have the conference which my noble friend Lord Bruce suggests so that he might learn something.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord's point was really a very silly one. The noble Lord's noble friend, with whom he does not exactly agree most of the time, was suggesting a cross-party conference. Since I believe that the noble Lord's party is for once actually in agreement with Her Majesty's Government on the convergence criteria, I do not believe that such a conference would be necessary. I also offered to write to the noble Lord on his substantive point.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, has my noble friend noticed that the closer we get to the Inter-Governmental Conference the thicker and faster the questions from various politicians become? My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has been described as the best negotiator in Europe. How can he possibly be expected to negotiate if all his cards are on the table, having been elicited by such questions?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have made that point on many occasions when we have refused to divulge, as my noble friend put it as a celebrated bridge player, our cards. No doubt the questions will continue to get thicker and faster, but I have not noticed that they have been particularly unthick and unfast in the past.

London Hospitals
3.8 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will convene a conference involving nurses, doctors and other medical specialists with a view to ensuring that doubts about hospital closures in London are resolved and that the Government's policy in this area is fully understood.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the Government's policy in this area is clear and has been stated on many occasions over the past two years. It has been the subject of wide public consultation in those parts of London where change is moving forward. The Government have taken account of all views put forward, including those of medical, nursing and other healthcare professionals, before reaching decisions.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. She must be aware that there are other aspects of the matter which are causing great concern. Is she aware that since the beginning of this decade the Greater London area alone has lost about 30 hospitals and that this has been reflected particularly in the number of older people dying earlier? Is the Minister further aware that the number of National Health Service beds has been reduced? What is harmful and hurtful is that those who can afford it can take private beds because there are now more of them than National Health Service beds. These

11
factors are upsetting nurses and all members of National Health Service staff who give such magnificent service to our country.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we have been over a great deal of this ground before. Perhaps I may just reiterate that it is not the beds which are important but the treatment which people get in hospital. That is changing very fast. Without the private sector, London and other parts of the country would be much the poorer. We should remember that 20 per cent. of the membership of the Royal College of Nursing is employed in the private sector.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is much concern in a good many hospitals that the threat of closure still hangs over them? Will she take speedy action to end that alarm by making it clear that no further closures will take place?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Indecision is bad for staff. They need to go forward with certainty, which is the intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. We are doing something which should have been done decades ago.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, while discussions are taking place with the professional people involved, public views are being totally ignored. What is happening to the Patient's Charter? Has it been thrown on a bonfire? What is happening to the many millions of pounds paid in contributions by members of the public, including Members of this House, for the upkeep and survival of many of the hospitals they most care about? What is happening to that money and why are the views of the general public being ignored by the Government?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government have to take into account a whole range of views. The noble Baroness is right; the Patient's Charter is an important principle and one of our major policies. Part of that charter is to reduce waiting times for treatment. I can announce today that over the past year the waiting time for patients in the Thames regions has been reduced. A year ago 3,000 patients were waiting more than a year for treatment, but today they are not. Increasingly, we are seeing more patients more quickly. We also take into account medical views. Dr. Chris Paine, the president of the Royal College of Radiologists, Professor Geoffrey Smith, president of the Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons, Mr. Rab Hide, a distinguished Glasgow neuro-surgeon, Professor Norman Browse and Dr. Howard Baderman are very eminent professors and clinicians who have chaired our specialty reviews. They have all come to the view that if London is to survive as a world leader it has to consolidate its medical services into fewer specialist hospitals where it can build on its expertise. The last thing we want to do is to see London lose its place as a world leader.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I asked about the money.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that people are automatically and naturally
12
fond of any establishment near them which they know? Is she aware of the report in today's newspapers that recovery from breast cancer is very much better in hospitals which have more specialised facilities? Does the Minister also agree that if she was involved in a severe road accident she would prefer to go to a hospital having a full accident and emergency trauma centre, with neurological and cardiological back-up, rather than a hospital with an accident and emergency department that was really more a casualty department for local people to attend?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend.
Lord Annan: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that we owe something to Dr. Jarman, who has questioned the statistics of the Department of Health? Does she agree that we do not need a large conference to sort out these matters? Could not Dr. Jarman, and perhaps a representative of the London Health Economic Consortium, meet with officials of the department to see whether the discrepancies between their figures can be resolved? When I try to do so, I cannot make head nor tail of them.
Perhaps I may ask a second question of the noble Baroness. There is a lack of nursing homes and other facilities for the elderly in inner London, and for that reason they are often occupying acute beds in hospitals. Is there any way of obtaining funds in order to increase the number of nursing homes etc. for the elderly and thus relieve pressure on the hospitals?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the first question asked by the noble Lord concerning Professor Jarman's work. That has been very closely studied by the chief executives of the inner London health authorities. Although there was some agreement, there was also some disagreement as regards the figures which Professor Jarman used. He was working from a different base both in time and in the area he covered. It is no good in looking back all the time; we have to look forward. The future undoubtedly lies in greater specialisation but with very strong community support for primary care. The noble Lord is right in saying that we have to invest more in services for the long-term care of elderly people. We are putting in £210 million over the next three years to improve those services and also to improve primary care, GP services and community nursing.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, having nursed for many years, I know that we all have our favourite hospitals and are loth to see any of them go. Does my noble friend agree that already in 1902 the newspapers were asking for London hospitals to move out of the capital and that that time is now overdue?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. All staff have loyalty to their institutions. But hospital provision in London has been a long-standing problem and it is time that it was resolved.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe that the fourth Question on the Order Paper is not to be asked. With the leave of the House, I ask the Minister this. If, in the debate in the other place tomorrow, the intended

13
undertakings to be announced by the Secretary of State as regards certain London hospitals are not given, what will that mean about the London strategy? Will it have been shelved?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is no question of that situation arising tomorrow.

Business
3.17 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Ferrers will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the nuclear review.

Business of the House: Debates, 10th May
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My
Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Carter set down for Wednesday next shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Desai set down for the same day to two-and-a-half hours.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Children (Scotland) Bill
3.18 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Children (Scotland) Bill which your Lordships are considering today is a major milestone in Scottish children's legislation. It builds on the principles and fulfils the undertakings set out in our White Paper Scotland's Children. The Bill defines the responsibilities and rights of parents. It promotes the welfare of children. It improves the protection of children. It brings adoption law up to date.
The Bill which is now before your Lordships is the result of a great deal of preparation, and welcome extensive public debate in Scotland. Its origins are in the child care law review which reported in October 1990. Since then there have been a number of important reviews and reports which have contributed to our proposals, notably the reports of the Orkney and Fife child care inquiries.
Before I turn to the detailed provisions of the Bill, I would like to say a word about the procedure which is being followed in this Bill. We have already made substantial use of the new procedures for legislation set out in our White Paper Scotland in the Union. The purpose of those procedures is to enable Scottish legislation to be dealt with in a distinctly Scottish fashion. Part of that legislative process took place in Scotland itself. The Second Reading of this Bill took place in the
14
Scottish Grand Committee sitting in Edinburgh. This was followed by three sessions of evidence-taking by the Special Standing Committee which considered the Bill in another place. Evidence was heard by that committee in both Edinburgh and Glasgow. A wide range of interests gave evidence, from directors of social work to young people who had been in care. As the Scottish Office Minister with responsibility for home affairs and social work, I too gave evidence to the committee. We, and I believe the Special Standing Committee, found this a most useful and informative step in the process.
We made it clear that we would take careful note of the points raised both in the evidence-taking and during the Committee discussions in another place. For their part, the Opposition made it clear that they would not treat this Bill in a party political way—I am very grateful for that. The co-operative and practical approach has been extremely fruitful. The substantial number of government amendments which were brought forward at Report in another place is a clear illustration of our willingness to respond to the useful points made in Committee.
Following our general consideration today of the principles underlying the Bill, it will be referred to a Committee of the Whole House, off the Floor. As is known, it is an experimental procedure which was recommended by the group which considered the Sittings of the House and which was endorsed by the House in a debate a year ago. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that any noble Lords—not only those who are Scottish—who wish to do so may attend the proceedings of the Committee. I am confident that that procedure will continue to allow the co-operative approach we have enjoyed up until now. I am grateful for that and for the constructive contribution made by the all-party parliamentary group on children under the chairmanship of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun.
I would now like to turn to the detailed provisions of the Bill. The Bill is in three main parts. The first deals with parents, children and guardians. The second deals with the promotion of the welfare of children by public authorities. The third part contains amendments to the law on the adoption of children.
The provisions in Part I are drawn from the Scottish Law Commission's report on family law which was published in 1992. We are grateful to the Scottish Law Commission for all the detailed work and consultation which it carried out, much of which is reflected in this part of the Bill.
The first three clauses of the Bill set out the main responsibilities and rights of parents for the upbringing of their children. This is a clear and important statement of their statutory responsibilities, first, for safeguarding and promoting the child's health, development and welfare; secondly, for providing appropriate direction and guidance; thirdly, for maintaining personal relations and contact with the child in cases where the parent is not living with the child; and, finally, for acting as the child's legal representative.
The statement also extends to the rights which are required to enable parents to fulfil their responsibilities. Those responsibilities and rights underpin our central belief contained in the Bill, which is that children are best looked after by their parents. Importantly, it is those

15
provisions (coupled with those in Clause 11 which deals with court orders) which will lead us into a new climate where the emphasis will be on both parents—not just one—playing an active part in raising their children.
At present a father who is not married to the child's mother does not have rights in relation to the child. This recognises that in a number of such cases the father has no interest in the child—and is usually absent. No change is made to that general position. However, under the terms of Clause 4 we will make it easier for an unmarried father who does take an interest in the raising of his child to acquire both parental responsibilities and rights by agreement with the child's mother.
Clauses 11 to 14 set out the duties and powers of the courts in relation to children. These represent a fundamental change in existing law. They replace the concepts of "custody" and "access", which in the past have too often proved to be divisive and damaging to the child and his or her upbringing. Instead the courts will be allowed to make residence and contact orders, which are properly focused on the child and which should be more readily adjustable to the circumstances of individual cases and to the problems that might confront an individual child.
I would now like to turn to Part II of the Bill. This part contains the public law provisions concerning children. It both introduces new provisions and provides a substantial restatement, with amendment, of existing areas of child care law. Local authorities, courts and children's hearings will be required to have regard to the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration in any decisions which they make, subject, of course, to the need to take account of any risk of serious harm to others. They will also be required to take the child's views into account when reaching those decisions. That will relate also to the needs of children with disabilities. I am referring not only to children who themselves have disabilities but to those who are affected by disabilities within their families. Their needs are addressed in Clause 21, which imposes a responsibility and duty on local authorities. The new provision is designed to minimise the effect of the disability on the child and to give that child the opportunity to live a life which is as normal as possible.
Local authorities will be given special duties and powers in relation to children who have been in local authority care. We know all too well that such children need good support after they leave care if they are not to become homeless or encounter a wide range of other problems—and too often descend into criminality. Local authorities will have a duty to assist all young people who were in their care at the time of leaving school up to and including the age of 18. This is an extension of their present duty. Local authorities will additionally have the power to provide assistance to young people up to the age of 21 who were in care at the time of leaving school if they consider this necessary.
Chapter 2 and part of Chapter 3 of Part II of the Bill deal with the distinctive children's hearing system in Scotland. The children's hearings retain their central place in the provisions for child welfare and juvenile justice in Scotland. This part of the Bill is substantially a restatement of the 1968 Act and remains firmly based on
16
the principles in Lord Kilbrandon's report that children who offend and children who are offended against may be equally in need of help. However, we are introducing a number of important changes which will strengthen the hearings and clarify their powers.
One of the main forms of action open to a children's hearing is to make a supervision requirement in respect of a child. New provisions in the Bill will clarify the effect of a supervision requirement and allow the hearings to specify important matters such as the responsibility for determining parental contact with children, giving authority for a child's medical examination and disclosing a child's whereabouts.
Chapter 3 of Part II of the Bill is principally about the protection of children, and here we are introducing important changes following very largely on the recommendations made by Lord Clyde after his extensive Orkney inquiry. What is presently called a place of safety order will be given a new name: the child protection order. The procedure for obtaining such an order will be changed to introduce new safeguards for parents and children.
Particularly important is the introduction of a new direct appeal to the sheriff, available to both parents and the child in situations where a child has been removed from home to a place of safety. In addition to that important change and the improved arrangements for the child protection order, two new orders will be introduced.
The first is a child assessment order which will enable an authority to obtain access to a child where it is concerned about the child's welfare. That may make unnecessary the removal of the child from home under a child protection order by providing a statutory right of access for purposes of that assessment.
The second new order is the exclusion order which would allow a sheriff on the application of a local authority to make an order to exclude a suspected abuser from the family home as an alternative to removing the child from that home. That is an important new power which has been widely welcomed in Scotland. Notwithstanding that, the provision has been the subject of substantial evidence and debate. The key point at issue has been whether such an exclusion order should be available on an emergency basis; that is, should it be possible to exclude a suspected abuser without giving the person to be excluded intimation and the opportunity of being heard by a sheriff before the exclusion order is granted. In the light of the evidence and discussions in another place, the Government have made it clear that the Bill will be amended in order to make possible exclusion on that basis. The necessary amendments will be brought forward in Committee.
In addition, we will bring forward amendments to make it possible for new evidence, which may be relevant to a case being considered by a children's hearing, to be brought forward without the need for resort to the nobile officium of the Court of Session. Those with any familiarity with recent cases in Scotland will appreciate that that amendment flows from a recent case in Ayrshire involving a number of children.
Further amendments will be brought forward to introduce provisions arising from the Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill, and a number of other points. Finally, Part III of the Bill and Schedule 2 deal with amendments

17
to the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978. It follows on from the review of adoption law in Scotland. One of the most significant outcomes of the review was, I am glad to say, the widespread confidence expressed in the existing legislative framework for adoption.
Notwithstanding that, the key changes to adoption law we propose are: an obligation on adoption agencies to consider all the options for the long-term care of the child; a simpler procedure for step-parent adoption; a requirement to seek the views of the children's hearing when considering a freeing order or an adoption placement; and a requirement to draw up timetables for adoption proceedings. Those will all improve existing adoption procedures in the interests of the child.
I should emphasise that Part III does not deal with inter-country adoption. Legislation on that aspect of adoption, which has grown increasingly important in recent years for a number of good reasons, needs to be framed on a UK basis.
The Bill is a coherent and ambitious statement of children's law in Scotland based on clear principles designed to benefit the children of Scotland and their families. Your Lordships' approval of the principles upon which it is based is eagerly sought, and your Lordships' later detailed scrutiny of the provisions is awaited with interest. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
3.35 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear exposition of the details of this important Bill. I wish to place on record from this side of your Lordships' House the appreciation of those involved in the welfare of children in Scotland for the care and concern which the Minister has shown for a considerable period of time and ultimately—perhaps through political pressure—for bringing this important Bill before the House. We are happy to co-operate in taking the Bill off the Floor of the House. Were it perhaps a year from now, we might have been hearing it in Edinburgh in an assembly different from your Lordships' House, but that is another matter.
The Bill represents a long-awaited step in legislation affecting children in Scotland and the relationship of the parents and, where they are involved, local authorities in Scotland. It is 26 years since the previous piece of significant legislation affecting children in Scotland was before a Parliament and the measure is long overdue.
The Bill carries with it all-party support, but that does not mean that it is a perfect Bill. When enacted it will govern, in so far as is possible within the realms of human relationships, the multifarious problems arising out of relationships among children, parents and local authorities, wherever the latter are involved.
The Bill has come from another place, where it was subjected to considerable scrutiny on all sides in the hope that, emerging from the work done on the Bill, there would be a statutory framework regulating the relationships involving the family and the community which would serve the individuals concerned and the
18
community in a constructive manner. The expectation is that that will help to eliminate some of the problems which arise from those relationships.
It is no doubt unfortunate that this legislation lags five years behind the equivalent English and Welsh legislation. But, on the other hand, perhaps the lessons learnt from the operation of the Children Bill south of the Border will make the legislation for Scotland better than it might otherwise have been once it has gone through the parliamentary procedure. No doubt those issues will be considered in Committee.
It is proper that due credit be given not just to the organisations which have been involved in the demand for legislation but to those which have made constructive suggestions throughout the Bill's passage in another place, and which have no doubt supplied Members of your Lordships' House who are known to have an interest in the subject with a considerable amount of valuable information and comment. Perhaps I may say in passing that I am extremely disappointed at the response to the Second Reading debate from Scottish Members of your Lordships' House or even Members south of the Border with a Scottish interest.
The formation of an all-party parliamentary group to press for and progress the legislation is in itself an indication of the universal recognition of the many problems arising in this complicated field of human relationships. Recognition of the work of those organisations has already been recorded elsewhere and I do not intend to repeat it. I would put on record that I am sure that all sides of your Lordships' House are grateful for the information and suggestions which we have received, with all of which we shall not necessarily agree, but they have assisted many Members to make a reasoned and considered judgment of the issues involved in the Bill, and they will of course be of value during the more important Committee stage. Continued representation throughout the passage of the Bill will be more than welcome, because every area of expertise has its place in our considerations of the Bill.
One of the many problems involved in a piece of legislation such as this is the striking of a balance between the philosophical approach to family relationships, the definition of those relationships and the practical application of the perceived consequences of the relationships within society. The Minister said in passing, as a broad proposition, that children are best looked after by their parents. Of course, that is true, but as regards today's society and the area towards which the Bill is directed, perhaps the use of the word "parents" is the exception rather than the rule. I am not satisfied that even with the best will in the world the Bill strikes that difficult—indeed, many may say, impossible—balance between the philosophy of family life and the practicality of enforcing it. I cannot for the life of me see how we can enforce family life upon either parents or children.
I make no criticism in saying that one of the problems of the Bill is that it has no teeth. Clauses 1 and 2 deal with parental rights and responsibilities, access to children and so forth. They are very fine and philosophical in content but they cannot, and can never be, enforced.

19
We live in a country of broken marriages, divorces and child victims of those marriages, established single-parent families, with one child or more involved, and the so-designated "absent parent". All of those issues are dealt with in the Bill. Arising out of that is the involvement of the local authorities and their obligations to the children who, through no fault of their own, are caught up in what can only be described as a mess of human relationships, with the consequent financial and other problems involving, as it appears, considerable public expenditure.
The question raised by the Bill is: how do we go about regulating those situations in the best interests of the individuals involved, child and parent, and the local authorities which in many cases will carry the financial burdens imposed upon them in many clauses and supplemented by the powers given to the Secretary of State to become involved in imposing burdens by regulations?
The guesswork as regards the financial consequences of the Bill is £4 million. I do not know how anyone can work out the financial consequences of a Bill such as this. There are approximately 22,500 homeless people in Scotland. Where is the accommodation to come from? Is it to be newly-built accommodation? How will it be provided? Who will pay for it?
It will be interesting to know what lessons have been learnt from the Children Act since it came into force in England. Has it worked out as anticipated? Have the local authorities been able to meet the obligations imposed upon them in the Bill? Perhaps in Committee the Minister will tell us what the position is south of the Border. He will be able to give us real and not imagined figures.
During the passage of the Bill many issues will require close scrutiny. Not least will be the stated duties of the absent parent. In many cases the very fact of absence will reflect that parent's non-concern for the welfare of his or her child—in many cases children—who has been left with the other parent to be brought up. Care must be taken to ensure that any statutory provision takes into account that, once a parent has absented himself or herself from the family, in the broad sense of the word, a new family relationship may have been created by the deserted partner into which the intrusion of the absent parent, perhaps after a considerable period during which he has provided no support to the child or children whom he has deserted, would be of no value whatever to the deserted partner or to the children. I am of the view—and perhaps I express a personal view—that the Bill cannot and must not be seen as a statutory passport to the parent who has taken the easy way out and deserted the partner, who is given the task of bringing up the family alone, to return to the family network.
For the purposes of our consideration of the Bill, it would be interesting to know whether the Child Support Agency has statistics showing how many people in Scotland have been identified or categorised as absent parents, the average length of stay from the family home and the lack of support for the child or children involved.
Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to go through the Bill clause by clause or line by line. That is not the purpose of a Second Reading debate.
20
In another place the Government were put on notice as to the issues which concern Members in all parties. We look forward to an informed and constructive debate on the many issues raised. Although I have not counted, I understand that there have been up to 70 matters in relation to which the Government have indicated that they wish to consider their position. As a result of the speed with which the Bill was brought before Parliament, that is perfectly reasonable and I make no criticism whatever. However, in those circumstances it is difficult to have a Second Reading debate.
Indeed, today the noble and learned Lord the Minister spoke of amendment after amendment. When I read my copy of the Bill I do not know whether it is the Bill which we shall be discussing in Committee. Therefore, to some extent we are talking in a legislative vacuum. Nonetheless, the Second Reading is now before the House and your Lordships will have to put up with the situation. We must do our best.
Not least of the questions that will be asked is that relating to the exclusion orders which are dealt with in Clause 70. It is the exclusion of an alleged offender or a child abuser, to put it in the broad sense. It is difficult to make any observations on the application of the clause because I understand that in another place the Minister said that the Government were still thinking about it—and quite properly too. Similarly, in relation to the appointment of "safeguarded" for children who are involved in proceedings, the situation is not yet clear. There may be many other areas in the Bill upon which the Government are having second thoughts. It is to be hoped that, by the time the Bill reaches the Committee stage, the issues raised in another place in respect of which the Government gave undertakings to consider the position will be clarified by government amendments, as the noble and learned Lord has indicated.
Perhaps it would be sensible to suggest that we do not discuss the Bill at all until we see those amendments, but I believe that that would be silly. The Bill should not be designated for the benefit of parents, married, absent or otherwise. The prime concern is the welfare of the children, present and future, and those in the care of local authorities who must be helped after their release from that care. Perhaps rather than imposing an absolute duty to give help, advice and assistance to persons who have left local authority care, it might be proper to provide that every child leaving such care should be advised of the availability of help, advice and assistance. They would then know that at any time until the age of, say, 21 they could go back to the local authority.
The provisions relating to exclusion orders and interim exclusion orders will be of great concern. They pose problems not only to the person excluded but to the child or children involved and to the family as a whole. The Bill is unclear as to whether a sheriff, having heard all the evidence relating to an exclusion order but not being satisfied that the finality of an exclusion order is appropriate, can still make an interim order based on the evidence that he has heard presented by the local authority. The difficulty in interpreting this part of the Bill arises out of the definition of an exclusion order in Clause 70(8). That appears to exclude an exclusion order as covering an interim order. Many of your Lordships may

21
consider that that sounds like gobbledegook. However, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Minister will take the point on board. Perhaps the Government will look at that matter as it is of some practical importance, in particular where the safety of the child may be in balance.
That part of the Bill is one of great difficulty and has potential for causing considerable harm to many of the individuals involved in the matter: for example, what will be the employment prospects of the alleged abuser when he has been excluded without proof of guilt of anything; what of his standing in the community, in particular in a small community; and if the alleged abuser is found to be innocent at the end of it all, from where and whom does he get recompense for the damage done? We all recognise abuse, sexual or otherwise, for the evil that it is, but that problem must be approached with great care. Not least in the catalogue of problems is at what point the views of the child or children, as the case may be, are to be taken into consideration and how their evidence is to be taken and evaluated.
I noticed in a newspaper report today that the Minister has taken active steps to train people in taking evidence from young children. I believe that the Minister and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate are working together to draw up a set of rules in relation to the questioning of young children, which is very welcome. To some extent, that may answer the questions that I posed.
I wonder also how important are the views of the child. There was an unfortunate report in a newspaper on Monday which told of a tragic case of a 14 year-old boy who was faced with that very predicament—to choose between his mother or father. We all know that one of the great problems in abuse cases is the guilt complex which is thrust upon the child because the child feels guilty, whatever happens: if the father goes to prison, the child feels guilty; if the household is broken up, the child feels guilty. Very often the other members of the family begin to niggle the child, or the mother may abandon him. Those are very grave problems. If the newspaper report is correct, in the case to which I have referred the young man took the absolute solution and hanged himself. That really shows the difficulties in that very complex area of human relationships.
Before Committee stage I should like to raise one matter in relation to exclusion orders and interim exclusion orders. They can be applied for only by the local authority. Should there be a role for the reporter in those proceedings? In other words, there could be a joint application by the local authority and/or the reporter. There is an obvious danger in casting the net too widely in relation to applications for exclusion orders because inevitably there will be a multiplicity of applications from a variety of persons or groups asking for exclusion orders for a variety of reasons —genuine, evil or otherwise. Therefore, I suggest that it would be better for any such concern to be channelled through the local authority and/or the reporter service.
Perhaps I may raise two further matters in conclusion. The first is as regards the situation of children attending independent and grant-maintained schools. I have no doubt that the Government have been alerted to that matter. If the Title of the Bill—the Children (Scotland) Bill—has any meaning whatever and if we are taking
22
account of what the United Nations and the Scottish Royal Commission have said, no child in any school or establishment should be treated in any way differently from a child in any other establishment.
As I read the provisions of this Bill, there is an indication that independent and grant-maintained schools will be free from any investigative process at the instance of any inspecting authority to ensure that the rights and welfare of children attending such schools and establishments are being properly regulated and protected. The rights of children in Scotland should be the same, wherever they are. When a parent signs a child into a particular school, giving full parental authority to that establishment to treat the child as though the school were the parent and to administer corporal punishment to that child, that is surely a prima facie failure to recognise the rights and views of the child which are central to this Bill. The wishes of the parents are neither here nor there. Throughout, the Bill refers to the views of the child. How are the views of the children in those establishments to be ascertained if nobody can get into them to see what on earth is going on? I am sure that your Lordships will be familiar, either through experience or by reading of it, with what happens in certain schools.
If I have misread that part of the Bill, I shall he delighted to be told so. But I seek an assurance that no children's rights, in the light of the provisions in the current conventions, are being or are likely to be abused in any school in Scotland.
Secondly, there is the question of chastisement of children. That matter was raised in another place and did not find favour with the Government. The Scottish Law Commission has recommended that no implements should be used for the chastisement of any child. That did not find favour with the Government. It may well be that it will find favour in your Lordships' House. But the matter must be taken one stage further because, although I do not have the report before me, I believe that reference is made in one report to an educative slap. There is no such thing.
The Minister and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will know from their experience of the Crown Office that some of the most tragic cases of which we know are those where an angry parent, a frustrated parent, a father who cannot cope with a crying child, has picked up the child and has either shaken it to death or given it a slap across the head which has caused the brain to he damaged. Therefore, we are looking for a system through which to educate parents. Physical violence towards a child cannot be regulated and if we had a perfect society no child would ever be assaulted. It would be unrealistic to say that that is what will happen, but we should start an educational process, just as we have in relation to motoring accidents and drink-driving, to educate young parents in particular that any form of violence towards young children is liable to have fatal results.
Many other important issues will arise in the course of the Committee stage. As was said in another place, this side of your Lordships' House will do all in its power to put this Bill on the statute book because it recognises the principles enshrined in it. We shall do nothing to halt the progress of the Bill. However, that assurance does not mean that there will not be debates on the issues involved

23
in this wide-ranging piece of legislation. Indeed, there may be occasions on which the opinion of the House will be sought. I hope that any amendments brought forward will be treated by the Government as being constructive and not in any sense destructive. We all wish to do our best for Scotland's children and in particular the deprived and under-privileged children who are the victims of today's society.
No Act of Parliament will ever solve those problems. We can only do our best. I look forward to the further stages of this Bill which, when enacted, it is hoped, will give children in Scotland and the community a better protection within the law and a better opportunity of a reasonable life than can be foreseen at present.

Nuclear Industry: Review
3.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I repeat a Statement which has been made by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, with permission I would like to make a Statement about the conclusions of the Government's nuclear review. This will be followed in due course by a debate. The findings of the review are set out more fully in a White Paper which I and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland are publishing today and placing in the Libraries of both Houses and the Vote Office.
"First let me say that safety has been a paramount consideration throughout the review. The review has confirmed that nuclear power plays an important role in meeting the UK's energy needs and should continue to do so, provided that it is competitive and is able to maintain rigorous standards of safety and environmental protection. The nuclear industry argued the case for additional nuclear power stations. The appropriate test of this case is the potential availability of private sector finance for a project to build a new nuclear power station. There is, at present, no case for government intervention to distort the electricity market by providing finance or guarantees to one form of generation over another. While the market will ultimately be the judge, the review concluded that, on the basis of the figures provided by the industry in the review and in the light of the returns available from alternative generation projects, private finance is unlikely to be available at present for new nuclear construction.
"The review also examined whether, and over what time-scale, privatisation of the nuclear generators would be feasible. The benefit to consumers from the privatisation of most of the electricity supply industry has been clear: domestic electricity prices are now lower in real terms, even after VAT, than two years ago, with further reductions in the pipeline. The average
24
price paid by industrial consumers has fallen by more than 10 per cent. in real terms since 1989, the last year in which the industry was in state ownership.
"The nuclear stations had to be excluded from electricity privatisation then, because investors were concerned about the risks of substantially increased nuclear costs; about the performance of the advanced gas cooled reactor, or AGR stations; and about the costs of financing new pressurised water reactors, or PWRs.
"The situation today is very different. The generators have removed many of the uncertainties about the costs of managing spent fuel and waste and decommissioning plant. They have completed the first stage of decommissioning Berkley Magnox station and the costs have been about one-third lower than originally estimated. The performance of some AGRs has vastly improved. Sizewell 'B' has been built within budget and is now in operation.
"As a result, the Government have decided to privatise the more modern nuclear stations—the seven AGR stations and the PWR station at Sizewell—during the course of 1996. The liabilities associated with those stations will also be transferred to the private sector.
"The Government have decided to create a holding company, with the parts of Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear which are to be privatised as its wholly-owned subsidiaries. The holding company approach has been designed both to preserve the identities of Scottish Nuclear and Nuclear Electric and to establish a significant holding company to be registered in Scotland, where its headquarters will be located. The headquarters will include all key group functions. A chairman independent of both Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear will be appointed.
"Scottish Nuclear will continue as a separate entity with its own board; its continued existence will be protected by special shares in the holding company and in Scottish Nuclear Limited. The functions currently carried out by Scottish Nuclear at its headquarters in East Kilbride will continue to be carried out there. In addition, it is expected that engineering functions within the group will be reorganised to bring more jobs to Scotland. In all, those developments are expected to bring at least 100 jobs to Scotland.
"The new subsidiary companies will continue to participate in their respective markets in England and Wales and Scotland. There will be no change in the market share held by Scottish Nuclear in Scotland but the establishment of the new separate Magnox company in England and Wales will mean that Nuclear Electric's private sector successor will have a smaller market share than Nuclear Electric does at present.
"In private ownership, the holding company will be free to compete, both domestically and overseas. Privatisation will provide powerful incentives for the two subsidiary companies to benefit their customers by raising efficiency and reducing costs.
"The new company will be totally committed to maintaining the exemplary safety record of the nuclear power generating industry. Safety is of paramount

25
importance, and will not be compromised. As the Health and Safety Commission said about the transition to the private sector in its evidence to the review:
'The system of nuclear regulation in the UK … is internationally recognised as a rigorous system for ensuring a high level of safety. It is essentially sound, and there is no reason to change it in any fundamental way to deal with whatever structure emerges'.
I agree. The Government's commitment to the continuation of a rigorous safety regime remains absolute.
"The Government intend to safeguard financing of long-term liabilities to be passed to the private sector as a result of those proposals through the creation of segregated funds or similar arrangements.
"The review also considered the future of the Magnox stations. The Government do not believe that the Magnox stations can be privatised. The review did identify, however, opportunities for reducing the costs of discharging their liabilities, which potentially fall to the taxpayer.
"The Government propose in the first instance that all the Magnox stations and their liabilities should be held in a stand-alone company owned by the Government. That will create a new baseload nuclear generator with 8 per cent. of the English and Welsh market. In due course, that company will be transferred to BNFL, giving BNFL a clear incentive to maximise the revenues from Magnox generation, to minimise reprocessing and other backend costs, and to optimise the economic life of the stations.
"Finally, the review examined the fossil fuel levy in England and Wales and the Nuclear Energy Agreement in Scotland. Both Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear have achieved significant improvements in their financial performance and in defining and reducing their liabilities. In the case of Nuclear Electric, the company and its public and private sector successors should now be able to meet the full costs of liabilities as they fall due without further help from the fossil fuel levy.
"The Government have therefore decided that, at the time of privatisation, that part of the fossil fuel levy to which Nuclear Electric is entitled should be abolished, at least 18 months earlier than previously expected. Electricity prices in England and Wales will fall by up to 8 per cent. in a full year as a result of that decision, with the average annual household electricity bill falling by as much as £20. Lower prices will also give a major boost to the competitiveness of British industry.
"Comparable arrangements will be put in hand in Scotland. The nuclear premium there will be ended, and those savings will be passed through to franchise customers in Scotland. Due to those and other savings already in train, domestic electricity prices in Scotland will fall by around 8 per cent. in real terms between 1994 and 1996.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is making an announcement today about issues relevant to the nuclear review, which have been examined in his parallel review of radioactive waste management policy.
26
"Madam Speaker, the proposals that I have announced today will make for a more competitive nuclear generation sector operating to continuing, rigorous safety standards. They will strengthen the ability of British companies to market nuclear services abroad. That is the right way forward for this key industry. At the same time, the changes in the fossil fuel levy and the equivalent step in Scotland will bring significant benefits to consumers. I commend the proposals to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I must first thank the Minister for repeating to the House the Statement made in another place by his right honourable friend. I find myself in an even more difficult position than is normally the case when dealing with Statements. This is an immensely interesting subject, but one which is technically difficult. I shall make my usual complaint: it is absurd that one is supposed to get up and begin to discuss such matters off the cuff. The position is made even more absurd by what appears to be, at a glance, a remarkably interesting White Paper. I must apologise to your Lordships and admit that I have just flicked through the pages, so there is no possibility that I can comment upon its contents.
The second sentence in the Statement reads:
"This will be followed in due course by a debate".
We always have to understand that as meaning that the Statement will be followed by a debate in another place; it is never followed by a debate in your Lordships' House. One of the most ridiculous things about the arrangements in your Lordships' House is that we have debates on all sorts of subjects but because, obviously, the Opposition do not choose to use their very scarce time for such matters the Government never choose to find time to debate such fundamental issues. I can only repeat what I have said many times. I do not believe that that is making full use of all the skills and strengths of this House. The thought that today is the only time we shall have this remarkable White Paper before us does not fill me with any pleasure. Noble Lords have heard me say that before; that will not stop me saying it today or, indeed, in the future.
I have a number of questions to ask and a number of comments to make. First, am I right that the proposals contained in the Statement will not require legislation? I am not entirely certain of that, but I think it is the case that, because of previous legislation, this will simply happen. Incidentally, if that is true—I would like confirmation—it underlines my point about debates. It means that we shall not even debate the matter as legislation. We should be told whether I am right that legislation is not required.
I now discuss the detail. The Statement says that the Government feel, to use their word—I think it is the wrong word here—that there is,
"no case for government intervention to distort the electricity market by providing finance or guarantees to one form of generation over another".
I object to the word "distort". Until this point the Government have taken a view—not one I necessarily disagreed with—that a balanced energy programme was

27
a sensible one, and that that kind of diversity might well require government support for one kind of generation rather than another. I would not use the word "distortion" as regards achieving that end; rather, the words "rational economic calculation".
Essentially the Government are saying that they no longer feel any further diversification is required. As the Government feel that way, and the Statement says that,
"private finance is unlikely to be available at present for new nuclear construction",
am I right to infer, putting the two together, that that means the end of nuclear construction? Am I right to infer that the stations we have are the ones we shall have and that there will be no more? The Government will not put up any money and the document states that the private sector will not do so either. Although I am quite interested in science fiction, I cannot believe that our friends from Mars will come down and finance a nuclear station. I shall not comment on whether that serious matter is right or wrong, but it represents an important moment in the history of nuclear power.
I now deal with the question of decommissioning, liabilities, and all that. My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel was, I believe, dealing with the matter when it was previously discussed. I believed then that the matter was simple and straightforward, that the private sector was simply not willing to bear the risk of decommissioning, and that that was why it did not happen. That appeared to come as a surprise to the Government. I remember the very hour it happened. However, it appears now that something has changed, if only slightly. The Magnox stations will stay nationalised. That has always struck me as being the reverse of what one might call traditional Adam Smith doctrine. Adam Smith essentially enunciated that the government were the place for safe projects and that the private sector was the great risk bearer. However, when it is a matter of nuclear generation it appears that the private sector will not go within a million miles of any risk taking and therefore the risks of not knowing the costs of decommissioning must be borne by the public sector.
My main question is the following. Does the review show that now we can calculate the costs of decommissioning the non-Magnox stations pretty accurately? Is that what has now been demonstrated? That leads me to another question. The Statement says:
"The liabilities associated with these stations will also be transferred to the private sector".
When I refer to stations, I refer to the AGRs and the PWR. The Statement continues:
"The Government intends to safeguard financing of long term liabilities to be passed to the private sector as a result of these proposals through the creation of segregated funds or similar arrangements".
That seems to me to be gobbledegook for saying that the private sector must put in train an amortisation fund which will amount in due course to the costs of decommissioning the AGRs etc. Am I right that that is what it means? That takes me to a related question. Does it therefore mean that this calculation can now be done; namely, that someone can say that the cost of decommissioning an AGR station can now be correctly
28
calculated—given long-term rates of interest expected to last over the next 50 years of perhaps 8 per cent. net and 5 per cent. real—and that we now know how to set up the relevant fund? Is that what this is meant to say?
Can the proposal in the Statement on segregated funds be carried out without legislation? Does the Companies Act ensure that the new privatised sector will be obliged to create sufficient funds? It is not obvious to me that that will be so. It is worth bearing in mind that this is a special kind of risk because if, in due course, a privatised nuclear power company has not set aside enough funds for decommissioning, and decommissioning is required, there is not the slightest possibility that the Government could then say, "Well, too bad, that is your problem". The Government would have to take on that risk if the privatised companies had not set aside sufficient funds. Two things follow. The obvious point is that they must be legally made to do that in the first place. It seems to me absurd to place this matter in the private sector. If one ever set up a classic economic argument for why something ought to be in the public sector, the risk and decommissioning costs here exemplify that well. However, that does not stop the Government.
My next question and/or comment concerns the bizarre state of affairs in Scotland. I am delighted that we can calculate with such accuracy that the number of jobs created will be 100. With an unemployment rate of 2.5 million, I am delighted that we can calculate to a fineness of 100. However, that is by the way. And 100 is better than 50, which was the alternative calculation offered to me. However, I cannot see why the holding company is being set up, and why, if we are going to privatise, the two companies are not being privatised separately. I just cannot understand the logic of that argument. The regulator seems to have taken a different view and several other economic commentators have also taken a different view. What one ought to have done was to concentrate on competition here rather than on anything else.
As I have not had the chance to read the White Paper, I have to ask the Minister whether it demonstrates that the holding company—putting the two companies together—is the correct answer. Is there research that shows that? And is that research set out in the White Paper? It certainly puzzles me that that is so. I have another question. I take it that the new body, given that it will not build any new nuclear stations and given that its capacity is then fixed, will be allowed to go into other methods of generation. Will the Minister confirm that there is nothing to stop the new body going into other methods of generation, especially if and when the Gas Bill goes through your Lordships' House and becomes law?
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me as I am speaking for longer than I would wish. That emphasises how important this subject is. I am not clear from the Statement what the role of the special shares in the Scottish company is. Is the role to prevent it being "de-Scotticized"—I am inventing the word—in order to please the Scots and to ensure that there will be a Scottish element? Are the shares intended as a pledge to the Scots that they will always have one bit of the English company, and that one bit of the English company will be forever Scottish? Is that the point of the shares? Perhaps the Minister can tell me. Will he also say how that can

29
possibly be a guarantee because, so far as I know, the Secretary of State could have such shares but could sell them at any time he or she fancied selling them? Therefore, one cannot give the Scots that kind of guarantee by means of the shares. Nevertheless I ask that question because I want to know the answer.
Happily, I have nearly reached the end of my remarks as 10 minutes is long enough to speak. I have some final comments. The Minister said that the nuclear levy is coming to an end. Does he agree that ending the fossil fuel levy has absolutely nothing to do with the privatisation proposals? One can end the fossil fuel levy at any time one chooses. It is useful to refer to the two matters in the same Statement but they have nothing to do with each other as regards privatisation. Can we also be told what the effects of the abolition of the nuclear fossil fuel levy will be? Has there been any forecast or analysis of the effect on renewable energy?
My last comment concerns safety. I am not anti-nuclear. I have always favoured an energy market which was both diverse and efficient. It does British industry no good to have inefficient energy production. If nuclear energy is efficient, then I am in favour of nuclear energy. If it is inefficient, I am against it. That goes for any other form of energy supply. However, I accept the diversification argument. There is no difference between the Government and us. However, safety is central. We have to bear in mind that the general public are particularly sensitive to safety in this area and do not like smart alecs telling them not to worry. I speak as a smart alec.
My concern is whether, once the industry is privatised, the role of the inspectorate—which, as the Statement says, is recognised worldwide as outstandingly good—will be fully safeguarded. Does the sentence,
"The Government's commitment to the continuation of a rigorous safety regime remains absolute"
mean that, in so far as they are able to give a guarantee, the Government guarantee the position of the inspectorate and will support its continued existence?
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. I wish to declare that I am chairman of a group of energy companies, which includes one which provides advisory services on electricity.
I should like to put a number of questions to the noble Earl. First, why are the Government convinced that they can be more successful this time in selling off the nuclear enterprises than they were in 1989? The Statement referred to that, and the Government seem to believe that they will be successful. However, are the financial institutions convinced? Will it be necessary, in order to convince them, to sell off the assets at a relatively low price? There have been indications of that having been done in the past.
Secondly, the form which the privatisation is intended to take, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, also puzzles me. According to press reports an argument raged as to whether the industry should be privatised as a whole, in which case there could have been benefits of scale, or privatised separately, in which case there could have been benefits of competition. If the industry is privatised as now proposed neither the benefits of scale
30
nor the benefits of competition can be achieved. The holding company will supervise two quite separate enterprises which will continue, as before, with their relative market shares. There will therefore be no competition between them, and presumably no rationalisation. That does not seem to me to be a sensible proposition. Perhaps the noble Earl can convince us otherwise.
Thirdly, I listened with care to what the Statement had to say about the levy. It does not appear that the levy as a whole will be removed but only that part of it relating to Nuclear Electric and the special arrangements relating to Scottish Nuclear. That implies that some part of the levy will continue, presumably that which relates to the Magnox stations and, I presume also, that which relates to stimulating renewable energy. According to my calculations that probably represents about 20 per cent. of the levy. Will the noble Earl indicate whether that is correct and whether that will continue until 1998 or for a period beyond that?
Fourthly, I presume that the decommissioning fund will take the form of an amount of money which will be among the assets which will be sold on privatisation. Can we be assured that there will not be some corresponding reduction in the value of the other assets to be sold in order to make that proposition more palatable? I hope that the noble Earl will agree, on the basis of past performance in respect of sales of the public utilities, that we are entitled to have some doubts about the value which will be placed on those assets as a whole when offered for sale.
Finally, like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I return to the question of safety. Quite rightly, the Statement emphasises the importance of safety. However, can the noble Earl say whether the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate will be given all the time it needs in order to prepare for adequate licences for the private operation of these installations? The public must be absolutely convinced beyond any possible doubt that there will be no conceivable relaxation of safety standards on the privatisation of the nuclear industry.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the remarks they have made about the Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that it was interesting and exceedingly difficult to understand. I agree that it is a highly complicated matter. The noble Lord therefore said that he found it difficult to speak on the subject. Having said that, he did not do too badly. He asked a number of penetrating questions, which I shall do my best to answer as succinctly as possible without discourtesy to the noble Lord or the House.
The noble Lord complained that there was no debate. That is a matter for the usual channels. I agree with him that this would be a most inappropriate form of debate as your Lordships have not seen the White Paper. Therefore, this is necessarily only a cursory response to the fact that the Government have announced that they are issuing a White Paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked whether the proposals would require legislation. He was right: they will not require legislation.
The noble Lord referred to the fact that the Statement said that it was not correct to distort the electricity industry by subsidy. He questioned whether that meant

31
that the Government had no interest in the future composition of the electricity industry. It is the Government's view that it is the market which should determine the best form of electricity generation. In 1989 70 per cent. of electricity generation was by coal. The situation has now completely changed and there is a greatly improved balance. It will be for the market itself to decide the proportions supplied by the various forms of generation.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to the fact that the White Paper mentioned that it appeared that there was no commercial argument for new nuclear energy and asked whether that meant that nuclear energy would come to an end. The noble Lord is not quite right in that respect. The National Economic Research Associates went into the matter in some detail and reported to the review. They considered, having taken all the information into account, that at present that was the case. However, if the private industry decides that the facts and figures have changed over time it is entirely possible for nuclear energy stations to be built.
The noble Lord asked whether Magnox decommissioning costs could be predicted fairly accurately. We now have a good deal of experience in relation to decommissioning costs. The costs are less than originally envisaged. Therefore, the cost of decommissioning nuclear generators as a whole is less than expected. Of course, it is impossible to give a simple answer which will cover every conceivable circumstance, but we can get a fairly broad idea now that we know that decommissioning is less expensive than it was expected to be.
It is perfectly true that when the companies are in the private sector they will have to accept liability for decommissioning. That will have to be taken into account when bids are made. How that decommissioning is carried out, whether through a sinking fund or some other method, is a matter for the companies.
The noble Lord was a little scathing about the 100 extra jobs in Scotland although he just about welcomed them. The moving of the headquarters, and the other repair mechanisms, to Scotland is a considerable advantage to Scotland.
The noble Lord asked, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, whether the holding company was a good idea. He asked whether the purpose was to enable Scottish Nuclear to remain basically for Scotland. That is, in fact, one of the main purposes. By having a holding company, one would have Nuclear Electric and Nuclear Scotland operating under a holding company. The purpose of having the special shares is to enable the Secretary of State, should he feel so inclined, to ensure that that remains the case. The White Paper discusses the benefits of the holding company, as the noble Lord will find when he reads it. Such a holding company is compatible with a regulatory regime and gives the least description to the existing companies.
The noble Lord also referred to the end of the fossil fuel levy. He stated that it was nothing to do with the White Paper. He may be strictly correct on that, but the matter is of considerable concern and interest. We thought it appropriate to put it in the White Paper. The only element
32
of the levy which will remain—the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to it—is the 1.0 per cent. to 1.5 per cent. levy raised for the renewals element.
The noble Lord asked whether the Magnox element of the levy will remain. It will not remain because the levy has obtained sufficient money to cover the decommissioning of the Magnox reactors.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked why we should be more successful privatising now than in 1989. The answer is that in 1989 there was considerable concern expressed about decommissioning, and the effect of nuclear energy on the environment. A lot more is now known about decommissioning. That has been undertaken. Therefore, not only the Government but the industry also know more about it.
The noble Lord referred to the holding company. I answered that point. He also referred to the levy. I believe that I answered that point. He referred, too, as did the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to safety. I can give both noble Lords the assurance that safety is paramount. The simple answer is that the regulations control whether or not a system is safe, not the methods of generation. Whether the generation is in the public or private domain, it is the regulations which ensure the safety. It is our intention to ensure that that safety will continue to be of the highest order.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend now answer the question which was very properly put by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, as to whether this matter will be debated by your Lordships' House when the White Paper is available? I hope that my noble friend will not reply that that will be a matter for the usual channels because it is certainly my experience that the usual channels generally become gummed up when there is any question of your Lordships' House discussing really important matters.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may say so, that is precisely the reason that it is a matter for the usual channels.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, perhaps I, too, may support the view expressed that the Statement is unusual in length and complexity, in the mixture of issues raised by it, and the importance of the matter generally. While one would not lay the responsibility for running the business of the House on the noble Earl, I should be grateful to think that he was at least sympathetic to the idea that we could have a serious, sensible debate on the White Paper at some time.
Perhaps I may raise two other points. There are a number of issues, but surely a major issue is the existence now of a massive international market in nuclear distribution in this area which is already in excess of £5 billion a year and growing quite rapidly. The British nuclear industry is superbly placed to exploit that market if the constraints of public ownership are taken away.
Finally, I should be grateful if the noble Earl will say whether these golden shares, special shares, are purely to ensure that the offices and the activities are located in

33
Scotland, or are there other factors? I am highly suspicious of privatisations where governments retain reserve powers.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, first, I understand the noble Lord's concern that this is an important Statement. It is a technical Statement. In no way did I wish to be curt to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as he might have considered that I was, in saying that it is a matter for the usual channels. However, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is, if I may say so in a most gracious way, an old war horse at these games. He knows perfectly well that the Government cannot say that there will be a debate, because it is a matter for the usual channels. Having said that, I agree with him and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that these are important matters. We are talking about high technology. As the noble Lord rightly says, British industry has an enormous capacity to lead the world in this area, and the world market is considerable.
Part of the reason for privatising is to enable the industry to become more competitive—to compete better in the world than it has in the past. I believe that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, the assurance he seeks, but it would have to be couched in fairly generous terms.
The point regarding the special shares is to ensure that the Scottish part remains Scottish. It is not supposed to be a hamper on the development of either the Scottish or the English nuclear industry. That is the whole purpose of the privatisation. It is to make the industry more competitive; it is not to be a fetter.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Cross-Benches have had their turn. Let us do this right.
I should declare a couple of interests. First, Nuclear Electric pays me a small pension which I earned when I was employed by the CEGB. Secondly, I am an adviser to UNISON.
My first question is this. In repeating the Statement the noble Earl said that there had been great improvements in the performance of the AGRs and that the PWR at Sizewell had been built to time. Under those circumstances, since the industry has been such a success under public ownership, why on earth do we wish to privatise it?
My second question is this. While consumers may well benefit from the early ending of the nuclear levy, what other benefits will the consumers gain arising from privatisation? The Statement made no reference to the benefits which consumers are likely to achieve from privatisation. Perhaps the noble Earl will outline those.
Regarding privatisation, shall we once again have the spectacle of the chairman's salary being increased many times over for doing the same job? Will the chairman and other members of the board be made millionaires because they will be granted share options?
Finally, I ask the noble Earl about the £70 million of pensioners' money which was used by Nuclear Electric to sack 2,000 people in order to fatten up the industry for privatisation. Can he say whether that £70 million—again
34
I declare my interest—which was used to make 2,000 people redundant will now be returned to the pensioners where it properly belongs?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that was a good old controversial speech, was it not? I see that I shall have to give the noble Lord a lesson on the advantages of privatisation, but now would not be a particularly appropriate moment. I merely record the fact that new Labour is just as determined to carry on with nationalisation as was its predecessor.
If the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, were to examine all the different companies, he would see that the benefits of privatisation were enormous—not only to those employed by the companies but also to their customers. The noble Lord asked: if the industry has been so successful thus far, why bother to privatise it? I come back to lesson number one on privatisation: namely, if an industry is privatised it generally works better, more cheaply and more efficiently. That is why we believe this privatisation to be necessary.
The noble Lord asked who will benefit from privatisation. I come to lesson number two of the privatisation sermon: the customers will benefit.
He then turned to the good old controversial subject of chairmen's salaries. I have no idea what the chairman's salary will be. But it is important that those who run our organisations are paid the rate for the job, whatever that rate happens to be. If you do not do that, you merely lose them to other organisations.
The noble Lord asked about the £70 million of pensioners' funds used to fatten up the industry. That was rather a vulgar way of putting it. If people are made redundant, they are entitled to a pension. If they are made redundant, it is in order to make the business more efficient. I cannot think that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, believes in his heart of hearts that it is right to employ more people than is necessary, at the ensuing cost to the public and to customers.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, so far my noble friend the Minister has been subjected to a whole list of detailed questions, but there has been very little praise and very little condemnation for this policy of the Government. I congratulate the Government because of what was in the Statement, not so much because I am an arch Right-wing privatiser—although I recognise that if the Government are not prepared to put up development capital, industries will starve unless somebody else does. In this particular case, as indeed in other privatisations, it has been the City that has done just that.
In the Statement (I do not have the words exactly right) it was made pretty clear, to me at least, that the Government would not finance any additional nuclear power stations and that the market would be the judge. How can the market be the judge in the current circumstances, when 75 per cent. or thereabouts of the electricity generation market is in the private sector and 25 per cent. or slightly less in the public sector?
I also have a detailed question for my noble friend. So far, many millions of pounds have been raised through the fossil fuel obligation, popularly known as the nuclear

35
levy, for the decommissioning of Magnox stations. That pot of money is somewhere in the system. Who owns it, and what will happen to it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for congratulating the Government. That was a very wise move and one that is greatly appreciated. He asked how the market can be the judge among the different systems of electricity generation. The fact is that people know the cost of generation. That is what the market is about, whether it is a matter of nuclear generation or any other kind of business. There are different methods of generating electricity. It is for the market to decide, as opposed to the Government subsidising, and therefore distorting, costs across the board. It is for the industry to decide whether there should be nuclear generation of electricity.
My noble friend asked what had happened to the "pot of money". A pot of money has been produced by the levy. That money is available for decommissioning the Magnox reactors and will be available for that purpose. The cost of the liabilities will be the cash in hand, some £2 billion; the remaining levy from the industry until it is privatised; and the privatisation proceeds—plus of course the expected reduction in the costs of decommissioning, which were estimated to be about £1.1 billion. The money that has been raised will be there and will be used for the decommissioning of Magnox reactors.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the issue of safety. I ask the noble Earl to remember the case of the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island. At the inquiry it emerged with painful clarity that the cause of the accident was that the company, which was privately owned, had brought the plant into operation before it was ready in order to get it into the old financial year and to secure a tax rebate of 5 million dollars (I believe that was the sum, although I would not answer for it). I decided then that I would never trust nuclear safety to the power of the profit motive. Can the noble Earl tell me why I should change my mind?
I regret that a change of this magnitude can be brought in without primary legislation. Does that not illustrate the danger of leaving unexploded vires lying about in the statute book?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Earl referred to a specific example, in which I believe there was no escape of radiation from the building. However, that does not answer the noble Earl's real concern. He said that a company brought the station into operation before it should have done. Perhaps I may return to a remark I made to an earlier point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. What controls safety is the regulations that are attached to an organisation. There are many safety aspects, on roads, for instance, and in the air. Rigorous safety is accorded to organisations that are privately run. The reason why safety will be assured when nuclear generation is privately run lies in the regulations that apply to it, which will be just the same as those that apply to it now. If the noble Earl is doubtful about that, I would
36
ask him to consider the example of air traffic, which is pretty hazardous if the regulations are not very tightly controlled, as they are.
With regard to the noble Earl's last argument about "unexploded vires", I have to work out exactly what unexploded vires are. But I understand his generality of concern. I shall explain only that that is the position of the law at the moment and that is why the Government do not see a need for further legislation.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, do not the questions that have been raised in the short time following the Statement show the immense importance of noble Lords being vouchsafed a debate? Has not the other place been told in the Statement that it will have a debate? Why should this House be denied one? Is it not proper for the noble Earl to say that there will be a debate, and at a convenient time to be arranged through the usual channels? Is not this hesitation symptomatic of much that is going on in the way of an attempt to marginalise this House in the legislative process? There were a minimum of three working days between Report and Third Reading of the Pensions Bill so that there was no time to correspond with the Ministers. The Finance Bill was put in on a Friday, on a day when the House does not normally sit, and at very short notice. Does not all that show that your Lordships' activities are being subordinated to the Government's desire to use your Lordships merely for processing a vast mass of government legislation? Should not the noble Earl now say, "Yes, there will be a debate and the place and time are for discussion through the usual channels"?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that was a forceful intervention by the noble and learned Lord. Indeed, he always makes forceful interventions on matters of constitutional propriety. He will realise that I was repeating a Statement. In the Statement, my right honourable friend said that in another place there would be a debate. But the other place has its own methods and system of arranging debates. It would be inappropriate for me to say that we in your Lordships' House will be guaranteed a debate. I shall undertake to consider very carefully and closely the concerns which have been expressed, not only by the noble and learned Lord but also by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and others. This is a subject which could and should be debated.
What I do not intend to do—I hope that the noble and learned Lord will acquit me of discourtesy—is give a guarantee that that will happen. That is not the way that such things are done in your Lordships' House. They are done through the usual channels and I believe that that is the right way. But I shall certainly bear in mind the concerns that your Lordships have expressed.
Perhaps I may also say that if the noble and learned Lord and indeed anybody else are concerned about this matter, they have the opportunity to table Questions and debates. It is not solely the responsibility of the Government. But I understand the concern that has been expressed.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, this is the disposal of yet another public asset. In the early years of privatisation, the

37
Government pointed out the extent to which the proceeds of those sales enabled a reduction of public debt. Is there any possibility at this late stage in the Government's life of a return to that form of financial rectitude? Alternatively, if that is not the case, is there any possibility that the proceeds of Scottish Nuclear should be applied to making more capital available to projects in Scotland?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that one of the ways in which a diminution of public debt is effected is by selling things that are in the public arena. That reduces public debt. There is nothing new about that.
I should like to give a little thought to the noble Lord's question about Scotland and perhaps I may write to him on that point.

Children (Scotland) Bill
4.54 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, we have before us today the much heralded and welcome Children (Scotland) Bill, with which, due to effective lobbying, I feel that we have been living for the past six months. The Bill is the first comprehensive look at the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 which dominated the lives of my fellow social work students 26 years ago.
The Bill begins by making general statements about the position of children and their parents, upgrading a child's status and giving some guidance about how children should be brought up and parenting conducted even after estrangement. The Bill goes on to look at what happens when effective parenting and family life break down. The much admired children's panel system is overhauled in the light of practical experience and the reorganisation of local government. I am always surprised that, although the system earns so many accolades, it has not been implemented anywhere else in the world.
The vast majority of families who are assisted by the social work departments are helped on a voluntary basis. From the children's panel the Bill moves on to the local authority's duties as discharged by the social work and education authorities. The Bill places a duty on the social work department to prepare, publish and review its plans for child care services. That is set in the context of a new emphasis on the welfare of the child as the primary focus, with a proviso that the protection of the public allows for the use of secure accommodation.
The child's right to give an opinion about its future care is enshrined in the Bill. That increase in the child's right to consent to the care package must be limited to prevent the child from determining how it will be brought up. The child's background must be determined by its parents.
New assessment procedures are to be put into place for children with disabilities and those children affected by the disability of their carers. I am concerned that the "children in need" category may be too narrowly defined and open to misinterpretation. I believe that it should be extended and described as a general welfare duty to supply services to all children in the area. That will prevent a minimalist approach to child care services.
38
There are proposals to extend the aftercare of children brought up at some time in care. That is okay but I should prefer to see the local authority's duty to those young adults extended beyond 21 and up to 25. I believe that it would be more beneficial if the social work departments were able to keep open the cases of children formerly in care, so that they would, if needed, know who had been their social worker, rather than try to reopen the case with the intake and assessment team when difficulties have arisen.
Within the care system there is a popular belief that getting out of care and away from social workers is a priority. Unfortunately, that subcultural thought contributes to the disturbingly high incidence of homelessness among ex-care people. I strongly urge that those cases should be retained as open but perhaps dormant cases until age 25. That would mirror the continuing interest taken by parents in their children as they progress through adolescence and early adulthood and on to their own parenthood.
There is also new provision for the inspection of private schools—I understand by the advice given by some lobbyists about the way that some of those schools may be conducted in a somewhat above-the-law style. It is not good enough to allow parents to hand over their children on an in loco parentis basis to people who may treat the children in a manner which may be traditional but may also be illegal. A licensing and inspection system would resolve those difficulties.
The Bill goes on to sharpen the measures for child protection, creating in its wake child assessment orders and child protection orders. That development of the current place of safety order hinges on the new exclusion order which enables the alleged abuser, rather than the child, to be removed from the home. That is a difficult legal rights situation. I am sure that the lawyers among us will be able to help us understand the dilemmas, as indeed they already have done.
I should like the exclusion orders to be on a 60:40 basis, as I recognise that there is a risk of false accusation. That has to be set against the appropriateness of such a measure where the allegation is true. There is also concern that there is no emergency provision for temporary exclusion if a sheriff cannot be contacted. That would result in the child's temporary removal from home for a couple of days after being abused. The provision is better than the status quo but is perhaps not ideal. Reports from abused children suggest that any removal from home is a double insult. It would be helpful if an exclusion allowance could be provided to the excluded person under Section 12.
The Bill moves on to deal with the final breakdown of family life. The local authority will be able to apply for a parental responsibility order. That is new terminology for the assumption of parental rights by the local authority. That measure has the merit of allowing continuing parental contact and perhaps even home placement. It deals with parental inadequacy rather than child behaviour.
Should the parental situation deteriorate totally, then adoption becomes a distinct possibility. The Bill allows adoption agencies to make available an adoption allowance to the adopters of older children who may not otherwise be acceptable for adoption. Recognising that

39
adoptions now are not usually of babies, that provision makes good sense. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a clear path to adoption from the children's panel. I hope that that can be remedied for it is procedurally difficult at present.
Finally, I return to the first clauses and the general guidance that the Bill gives to parents. I welcome any attempt to give guidance to parents as I believe that many of today's parents have lost confidence in their own ideas regarding the style and shape of family life. The ever-widening knowledge of different lifestyles which invades the home through all forms of media has knocked away traditional values and left uncertainty. Also, it would be helpful, for example, if the Bill confirmed that open-hand smacking is OK but that the use of closed hands or instruments such as sticks is not.
I presume that Clause 5 means that all baby-sitters will have to be 16 or over. If so, it will have a profound effect on teenage pocket money.
I welcome the Bill and hope that its reach can be extended. It will certainly improve the child's lot in Scotland.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I cannot conceal from your Lordships the pleasure which I feel in being able to contribute in a small way to this debate. My introduction to your Lordships' House came just too late for me to play any part in the debates on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. That is something which I regret. But I am fortunate in that I am the holder of two judicial offices, not one. I can change the colour of my robe according to the subject matter, rather like a chameleon. In criminal matters my eyes and ears are those of the Lord Justice General; in civil matters, especially those which affect the work of the Court of Session, my eyes and ears are those of the Lord President. It is a matter of particular pleasure to me that this Bill is dealing almost entirely with matters which affect my responsibilities as Lord President.
That is significant for one specific reason; it underlines one aspect of what has been achieved in the past 25 years as a result of the enactment of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which Part II of this measure will largely replace. As the noble and learned Lord the Minister reminded us earlier, the provisions relating to children are not restricted to children who have been the victims of abuse; they extend also to children who have committed an offence. We should not forget that that was one of the primary objects of the legislation which this measure is intended to strengthen.
The effect of those provisions was to remove almost entirely from the criminal law the activities of the juvenile offender. I can speak with experience as to the effect of those measures. I sit four days each month as chairman of a criminal appeal court in Scotland. We hear cases coming from every kind of court of criminal jurisdiction in Scotland, dealing with many matters. But, as I look back over my years as Lord Justice General, I can recall hardly any case which involved the position of a child offender. It is true that the procurator fiscal can prosecute in the
40
criminal court if he regards it as necessary in the public interest. But for practical purposes the system which was set up replaced the criminal jurisdiction. For that, Scotland owes much to the inspiration and humanity of Lord Kilbrandon, who was the architect of the measure.
This important Bill has been the result of the work of many hands. From my perspective I pay tribute to two bodies which contributed so much to what we find in the Bill. The first is the work of the Scottish Law Commission which, as your Lordships were told, provided the basis for what we see in Part I. That was set out in a report in May 1992 and the measures contained in the clauses are largely those set out in the draft Bill appended to the report. The other tribute I wish to pay, through the Minister, is to the Social Work Services Group, which played an active role in Scotland and whose work has been reflected by much of what we see in later provisions in the Bill. I hope that it will continue to play a part in its implementation.
The work of the Scottish Law Commission in the field of family law has been outstanding since the date it was set up. It is no exaggeration to say that it has virtually transformed the structure and substance of family law in Scotland. Indeed, much of the language which was current only 30 years ago has been altered with a view to creating a better understanding of what the aims are of the various principles upon which family law is based. That we see in the provisions in Part I of the Bill, where Scottish lawyers will have to learn new words for familiar concepts. It is right that they should do so because it will help lawyers, and indeed judges, to understand the purpose of those concepts.
With the work which has been done by the Scottish Law Commission and the measures which have been enacted as a result of its reports, Scotland can look forward into the next century with confidence that it has a system of family law in keeping with the needs of modern society. No doubt there will be some who will say that that work is incomplete, and with that I am bound to say I would agree, for this reason. In this field one can never stand still; there will always be work to do. But the achievements are positive. I am delighted to see that the report has been implemented with comparative speed and that it has been possible to bring it forward before your Lordships in the form of Part I of the Bill.
In relation to the Social Work Services Group—I pay this compliment through the Minister, if I may—as the Minister hinted earlier today, in recent years Scotland has had to contend with a number of difficult cases. My own court sometimes had to deal with those cases in the exercise of the extraordinary power which the court in Scotland has to deal with situations for which legislation has not provided. I am not convinced that that is a satisfactory way to deal with these difficult matters, and for that reason we have a responsibility, so far as possible, to fill those gaps.
The cases which have caused concern have resulted in personal tragedy for many people who are particularly vulnerable. The clock cannot be turned back in these cases. One regrets that, but it is a fact of life. But what we can and must do is to learn from the mistakes and by all means possible strive to avoid anything like that happening in the future. So far as legislation is concerned,

41
that means giving sufficient powers to deal with these matters and giving the flexibility as well which will enable the court to meet the situation of the case.
Scotland is fortunate in one respect in particular—its legal system. I use the words "legal system" in the broadest sense to include social workers, mediators, civil servants and other agents who all work together in this field. Distances are short, informal contacts at all levels are frequent and there are few informal barriers to overcome. I find that visitors from other jurisdictions are surprised by the ease with which we can communicate with each other and are impressed by the high degree of mutual trust which exists. That is a strength on which we can build in looking to the future. The work which has been done, with the encouragement of the Minister, has been very important in curing some of the difficulties that have been created for us in the past. I have tried where I can to give this work my support, and I hope very much that it will continue.
This is not the time to comment in detail on the Bill and I do not wish to detain your Lordships for much longer. There are, however, two matters which I should mention. The first is the provision about taking the views of children, to which the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, referred earlier. The second is the provision about appeals. There is nothing new about taking the views of children so far as the court is concerned. Judges have attempted to do this in various ways in the past, frequently at second hand by means of reports and sometimes by interview, but views have varied as to the way in which this should be done and indeed have varied as to the effectiveness of the exercise. I see this clause as placing a responsibility on me to see that, by rule-making and, if necessary, by practice note, I can give the direction which is needed to unify practice so that we eliminate trial and error in this important field. But the request I make of the noble and learned Lord is that I may be offered the opportunity of consulting on this issue, because I would rather that we knew precisely where we were going before the measure leaves this House in case amendments are required to be made to the clause.
So far as appeals are concerned, there is a provision which will introduce an option of appeal to the sheriff principal. There will then be a choice of appeal direct to the Court of Session or, alternatively, to the sheriff principal. But if there is a decision of the sheriff principal with which either party is dissatisfied there will be the option of an appeal further to the Court of Session. I can see advantages and disadvantages in that system. I shall not trouble your Lordships with those just now but I am concerned at the risk that this may simply create an extra rung in the ladder of appeal, which would involve expense and delay. I can assure your Lordships that, in this field above all, both I and my officials work hard to try to eliminate precisely those features which can cause such damage in cases arising from family law.
42
With those brief remarks I offer my warm support for the principles of the Bill. There is much to be discussed but I entirely support the principles which have brought it before the House.
5.14 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it is customary for the speaker following the maiden speaker to pay tribute to the maiden speaker's speech. For me it is a real and genuine privilege to have the job of congratulating the noble and learned Lord. I have a sense that today the mountain has come to Mahomet. We make the laws in this House. The head of the legal system in Scotland has come to us and has made a speech which has reminded us of that exciting new development.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, is a most distinguished lawyer and a most distinguished Scot. He learnt some of the tricks of the trade when he did his national service in the Seaforth Highlanders. He has been an advocate in Scotland. He became an advocate 30 years ago. He has been Dean of the Faculty of Advocates and he has been the editor of and a contributor to a number of key and not particularly slim volumes about Scots law. Now, as he has reminded us, he is Lord Justice-General of Scotland and Lord President of the Court of Session. It is a real privilege to have him among us. We have been fascinated by his speech and we look forward to those speeches which are to come.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, flying south yesterday afternoon after the VE service at St. Giles' Cathedral in Edinburgh and travelling by Underground from Heathrow to Westminster, it was striking how friendly and amiable and communicative we passengers seemed to be. The offering of seats and of help with heavy suitcases and the agreeable chat between strangers were clearly in tune with the spirit that had been growing all weekend. It seemed to me during that journey that the VE Day happenings, whatever else they had done, had reminded us of certain things that matter to us all, and we found it a heartwarming experience. To an extent this Bill seems to be heartwarming in the same kind of way. The speeches so far in the debate have borne that out.
The Bill is about something which we can all agree matters to every one of us in Scotland. It is about our children and how they are brought up and cared for in a changing world and amid changing patterns of family life. It is not just because we are all concerned about children that the Bill has been welcomed in Scotland. It is also because, as noble Lords have indicated, its contents have been the subject of particularly widespread consultation and careful, unhurried preparation. The noble and learned Lord the Minister made sure that there was very thorough consultation and preparation.
It has also had the benefit of the new procedures for consideration by another place. Discussion in the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh attracted a good deal of public attention. The involvement of experts in the subject in the very thorough proceedings during the Special Standing Committee enabled Scottish MPs to make contact, during the passage of the Bill, with their

43
constituents and others. That has contributed to extremely positive and very good improvements being made to it. The process has been facilitated by the sensitivity with which my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie and Ministers in another place have treated the Bill.
It is encouraging that the Law Society of Scotland welcomes the Bill. It has written that it is a substantial contribution to the rationalisation, improvement and reform of the law relating to children in Scotland. Likewise, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the consortium of organisations working for children in Scotland and Family Mediation Scotland, which also have much experience in these matters, all express general approval of the Bill. Of course, all these bodies have some detailed concerns and we shall doubtless be considering a number of them. The overall welcome is very encouraging indeed.
There is one general point I wish to make about the detailed views so far sent to me. Both the consortium and CoSLA have written mainly, although not exclusively, about concerns they have as regards Part II of the Bill and the public law provisions relating to the role of local authorities, children's hearings and the like, in promoting children's welfare. I hope that will not mean that our discussions in Committee concentrate so much on Part II that we do not look carefully at the private law provisions in Part I regarding the rights and responsibilities of parents who are separated or divorced, and the way they relate to their children and to one another in the interests of those children.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said that in this context parents are irrelevant. We must get Part I of the Bill right because a child's home life and his or her relationship with the parents, including the absent parent, is, as we all know, absolutely critical to the development of a child's personality, welfare and life chances. Many of the problems which of necessity have to be dealt with by the provisions in the rest of the Bill would not in fact occur at all if children's home lives and parental relationships had gone better.
There are a number of points, particularly in relation to Part I of the Bill, which concern Family Mediation Scotland. I hope that we shall look carefully at them in Committee. As I know from working with Family Mediation Scotland on the Private Member's Bill which I steered through this House—now the Civil Evidence (Family Mediation) (Scotland) Act and, I am happy to say, received Royal Assent last week—that organisation has a great deal of hands-on experience in children's law matters. It feels that the Bill would be improved if it did more than it does to put responsibility on divorced parents to consult and co-operate with one another in the best interests of their children.
Perhaps the parent with whom the child lives should be required, as far as possible, to enable that child to have good relations with the other parent. I regard that as an important point and I hope that we shall look at it. Family Mediation Scotland is also concerned that where, in Clause 11, court orders are provided for in relation to parental rights and responsibilities, guardianship and the like, and the court is required to have regard, so far as is
44
practicable, to the views of the child, there may need to be a statutory mechanism for finding out what the child's views are. It is a skilled and sensitive job. As has been said, talking children who may be torn between the views of warring parents, and who have divided loyalties and much emotional distress, is not an easy task. I am told that at present the system does not work very well. It is not something which most lawyers are well placed to do. It would be good if a better way can be found. It would be good if training were undertaken. There was discussion in another place on that point and I hope that we are going to continue that discussion.
Another point has been taken into consideration in the Lord Chancellor's recently published White Paper for England and Wales. It is the question of whether greater use should be made than at present of family mediation and the supply of information to parents who want to divorce. Family Mediation Scotland welcomes the power of the court provided in Clause 12(2) to delay matrimonial cases in order to ascertain as fully as possible the best interests of the child and how these might be met. Perhaps my noble friend who is to reply can tell the House whether the Government see the Lord Chancellor's thinking in this respect as the course to follow in Scotland and whether the Government would welcome an amendment to this Bill including a referral to mediation and an information session. My noble friend may or may not be able to answer that question, but I hope that at least he will say that it is going to be looked at, because it is of great interest to many people.
Noble Lords have already mentioned the general concern of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Law Society of Scotland about the financing of the provisions of the Bill and the timetable for its implementation, given the changeover to the new local authorities on 1st April next year. We shall doubtless want to look at these and other points. I follow the noble and learned Lord the Lord President of the Court of Session in his excellent speech. I welcome this Bill most warmly and I hope your Lordships will give it a fair wind.
5.27 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, before I say anything about the Bill and its contents I would like to put on my hat as joint convenor, with Mr. Norman Godman, Member of Parliament for Greenock and Port Glasgow, of the Scottish all-party parliamentary group for children. Wearing that hat, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, for having produced this Bill. I thank him both for the tribute he paid to us and for the way he met us and listened to our concerns. I believe that the Bill is very dear to his heart, as it is to ours, but we all know what fierce competition there is between ministries for parliamentary time, of which there is never enough to go round. He is to be congratulated on having fought and won the battle for this Bill. I suspect that it was quite a hard fight.
I pay tribute also to the valuable help the group received from the consortium for children and Children in Scotland in particular both in organising evidence, which not only the group heard but also the Committee in another place, and in drafting amendments. As a result, considerable improvements have been made to the Bill. However, I

45
believe that there is still room for further improvements. The views I shall be putting forward about one or two things are my own personal views. I am not speaking for other members of the group whom I leave to speak for themselves.
The group is still concerned that the Bill, unlike the Children Bill 1989, does not open with a statement to the effect that the interests of the child shall be paramount—what it calls the "overarching principle". This was much discussed in another place and I believe that the Minister was of the opinion that the principle was stated while it was applicable. I do not know that the statement of principle at the beginning of the English Bill made it a better Act at the end of the day. I believe that that Act has shortcomings because of provisions which were left out which perhaps should have been in it or because parts of it are being disregarded. No amount of "overarching principles" stated at the beginning of a Bill will make up for deficiencies in that Bill. Besides, in family life, there is a balance to be maintained between the interests of the parents and the interests of the children, and if the interests of the parents are unduly subordinated to the apparent interests of the children, the children's interests may suffer in the long run.
In Clause 25(1), like other members of the group, I should like to see the age ceiling up to which a local authority must advise, guide or assist a young person who has been in its care raised to 21. I should also like to see the permission in subsection (2) of the clause extended to a ceiling of 25 years of age. I do not believe that to do that would be nearly as expensive in the long run as the Government fear. Both the Association of Directors of Social Work and the Child Care Law Review report disagree with the cost given by the Minister in another place, but one must also set against the cost the savings in trying to deal with young people who have got into difficulties and turned to crime, prostitution, drugs, etc. These savings are not easily quantifiable but are real nevertheless.
More importantly, I think there is a real moral duty here. No decent parents kick their children out of the family home at 18 and then have nothing more to do with them. If you take children from their homes into your care you have surely a duty to make sure that that care is as near as possible to that which they would have received from good parents in a good home. I wonder sometimes whether local authorities should be running homes or whether it is best done privately. I am sure there are very good local authority homes, but I am sure also, from some of the evidence I have heard, that there are also rather bad ones. I have always heard that Barnardo's homes were very good indeed.
Moving on to Clause 34, I keep wondering why the Orkney children had to be sent to the mainland. Presumably the social work department did not have any refuges, safe houses or foster parents available on the islands. I should like to see "may" in subsection (1) (a) changed to "shall". Perhaps, however, there was some other reason for sending the children so far away.
I am sorry that the Minister, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, was so adamant at Committee stage in another place that it would not be possible to appoint a curator ad litem in the case of an emergency protection
46
order under Clause 53. I cannot help thinking that there may have been some misunderstanding between him and Mrs. Ewing, the Member of Parliament for Moray, who was not suggesting that the order should be in any way delayed but simply that as soon as the order had been made a curator ad litem should be appointed so that he could start discussions with the child before the children's hearing. Perhaps if that had been done in the case of the Orkney and the Ayrshire children, and had the curators been any use, the outcome might have been different.
I listened with interest and sympathy to Mr. George Robertson moving New Clause 1 at Report stage in another place last week; I read also with great interest the Minister's reasons for not accepting the new clause. That was the clause which made it illegal to chastise a child with an implement. I wondered whether it would not be possible to come to some accommodation which would at any rate outlaw the use of hard objects as implements of chastisement. It has always seemed to me that if you hit a child with an object which cannot itself feel pain and which, being an extension of your arm, by the simple law of dynamics, enables you to hit a good deal harder than you could have done with your hand, you cannot gauge the pain you are inflicting in the same way you can if you do it with your bare hand. I said this to one of my daughters last week. She said no, as far as she was concerned the new clause would not be acceptable. She said, "If I were cooking in the kitchen and I had a wooden spoon in my hand, and one of my children tried to poke a pencil into an electric socket, I wouldn't have time to think about putting the spoon down first, I should just have to stop it as quickly as possible by hitting him, probably over the hand with the spoon. His life could be at stake." So there you have the practical view of a young mother. Having heard that view, I rest content with the present situation. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, spoke about the necessity of educating parents. He has a very good point.
I know that many members of the Scottish all-party children group would like to see the provisions in the Bill for the exclusion of alleged abusers under Clause 70 extended so as to apply also to emergency protection orders, and that the Government are considering this. Where violence is the problem and a child may be at risk of his life or in danger of grave injury, I would support this, but subject to the discretion of the sheriff, as set out in Clause 70.
Where violence is involved, it is likely that the mother and others in the family may have been subjected to the same treatment. It is probable also that it is quite clear who the abuser is and that all except the abuser will be happy to see him removed. But where it is a case of suspected sexual abuse, it is very much more difficult. For example, the alleged abuser may be the mother's live-in lover, her "bidey-in", and she may well regard an abused daughter as her rival. You have to consider the child's quality of life if he or she remains in the home.
There may be situations where the alleged abuser is not only the breadwinner but earns his living by working largely from home, possibly with a computer and video link. This is an increasing trend and should perhaps be taken into account when considering exclusion orders. Where a chap occupies a tied house because, for example,

47
he is the caretaker of premises and the insurance on those premises depends on an authorised person's presence on them he could not only lose his job for being absent, but if a break-in or a fire occurred the insurance could refuse to pay. I wonder whether the owner would have any remedy.
Where sexual abuse is involved, it has probably been going on for some time. I wonder whether emergency procedures should be involved in these cases. There may be other considerations to be taken into account, and it is a very difficult area in any case. I just do not want us to go overboard for exclusion without thinking very carefully what we are doing and without adequate safeguards.
I hope and trust that the Government will disregard the suggestion from the Law Society of Scotland that persons other than the local authority, such as siblings, grandparents or the child himself, should be able to apply for an exclusion order. Like the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, I can envisage all kinds of malicious applications, such as from a girl who did not like her stepfather and wanted rid of him.
Moving finally to Chapter 4,I am not quite convinced that "relevant persons" includes other relatives of the child such as grandparents, uncles and aunts, and cousins. The concept of totally cutting a child off from his family is a terrible one and should be avoided wherever possible. I am convinced that many psychological problems arise from rootlessness and not belonging to anyone. Every possible effort should always be made to keep a child in the family by which I mean the wider family where it exists and where it is possible, and just not the nuclear family, which, I am sorry to say, is what the word "family" seems to mean to so many people nowadays.
5.38 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate, and I should like to begin by making a small appeal. Your Lordships will note that today's Order Paper states:
"Bills marked § have been set down before the expiry of the recommended minimum interval between stages".
I hope that the Bill does not go into Committee too soon. Given that six new clauses have been added and Clause 29 has been rewritten, I shall need time to study the Bill between the conclusion of Report stage in another place and its detailed consideration in this House. With that number of clauses, all one's sequences have been thrown out.
While I accept the principles of the Bill, which are clearly intended to protect children's welfare and nurture—the drafting emphasises that the child's welfare is of paramount consideration—this is not an easy Bill to follow or to understand fully because there are so many cross-references between one clause and another.
Although I agree that the mother should be primarily responsible for her child, there does not seem to be the "whom failing provision" in Part I for a grandparent, uncle or aunt to fulfil that gap. I feel that few young married persons would have the foresight to appoint a guardian in the event of their death.
48
In Chapter 1 of Part II, it is the local authority that is mainly responsible for dealing with problem children. I make a further appeal, that when the Bill comes into force DSS staff co-operate with local authority staff and elected councillors better than they have in the past. Perhaps I may give an example. A clerk to a district court is not given the necessary information by the DSS of the whereabouts of a person who has failed to pay a fine to that court. The panel of a children's hearing must be given every assistance from DSS or local authority staff and not have to drag the necessary information out of the officials. After all, panel members usually have another job to do.
I was sorry to read that Section 25 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which empowers a local authority to provide assistance for apprenticeships, is being repealed. When I was in my 20s, I knew a number of people who had been assisted in that way.
Children's hearings take place only when a child, or someone connected with that child, is accused of some misbehaviour. As newspapers today seem to thrive on sleaze, regardless of the damage caused, I am concerned that under Clause 39 a press reporter is permitted to attend a hearing. Witnesses must be able to speak freely and be truthful under oath.
Clause 53, as an example, states:
"In this section the expression 'sheriff does not include an honorary sheriff.
I must admit that I do not know the difference, but it makes me wonder about other clauses when an honorary sheriff will or will not do.
There are a number of clauses in Part II where I feel that the principal reporter should be involved but has not been included.
Chapter 4 of Part II deals with parental responsibility orders. We there come across a new person—a reporting officer. Is there to be a link between the reporting officer and the principal reporter. I hope there will be better co-operation between those different authorities than I had the impression was the case in the past.
Part III deals with amendments to the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978, at which I have not had time to look. I have asked a number of technical questions. I do not expect my noble friend the Minister to answer them tonight, but I shall raise them in Committee. I hope that by the time the Bill leaves its Committee stage the many doubts that have been expressed today will have been cleared up.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I hope that, as a mere Englishwoman, my speaking on a Scottish Bill and jumping into the gap will be forgiven. My reason for doing so is my great interest in what was the Children Bill in which I played an active part. This Bill in many ways follows the Children Act, and I shall have an interest in this Bill too.
My noble friend Lord Macaulay supported the Bill, as indeed I do, but said that it was not perfect. It is to point out one of the ways in which it is not perfect that I wish to make my brief intervention.

49
In his elegant maiden speech, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, praised the work of the Scottish Law Commission—outstanding, he said it was. The Scottish Law Commission Report on Family Law proposed strict limits on physical punishment of children: that it should become an offence to hit a child with a belt, stick or other implement or in a way which could cause injury or significant pain or discomfort. But the Government did not include this proposal in the Bill when it was introduced in the other place and have opposed attempts to add it to the Bill. This provision has the strong support of the Consortium of Voluntary Organisations in Scotland and indeed throughout the UK.
In addition, when the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child examined the UK report on implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in January this year, it expressed its particular concern over,
"the national legal provisions dealing with reasonable chastisement within the family".
I should like to quote another sentence:
"The imprecise nature of the expression of reasonable chastisement as contained in these legal provisions may pave the way for it to be interpreted in a subjective and arbitrary manner".
My noble friend enlarged upon that, and I agree with all he said.
The committee went on to propose legal reform against physical punishment. Here we have the Children (Scotland) Bill. Its passage is the first opportunity that the Government have had to respond to these formal comments and recommendations from the international body responsible for monitoring compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Surely the Scottish Law Commission proposal, which has such strong support among children's organisations, should be added to the Bill.
5.48 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for jumping in as number two in the gap. It is somewhat presumptuous of me to do so because I have never worked in Scotland, although I am half a Scot. On the other hand, I have attended many panels by invitation and I am friendly with many social workers in Scotland. They have kindly invited me to the conference of the Association of Directors of Social Services in Dundee in a fortnight's time.
I wonder whether I may ask questions rather than make statements in case I am wrong and might not have understood the Bill. First, like the noble Baroness, Lady David, I took part in the passing of what is now the Children Act 1989 for England. I moved an amendment that children should be allowed to be cared for by the local authority if they had been in care until the age of 21. Believe it or not, I lost the amendment and on the grounds of cost. It has been proved that in England and Wales the introduction of the clause would have been cost-effective. Research has shown that many of the children who were not cared for by the local authority until the age of 21 became homeless and took to drugs. At the end of the day the provision would have been cost-effective.
50
I congratulate the Minister on introducing the clause and I hope that it is agreed to by your Lordships. However, its provisions will be costly, and I hope that the resources are available, in particular for housing. Perhaps the Minister will say whether the resources to pay for them will be available.
My second point relates to a Bill that is passing through your Lordships' House in relation to England and Wales; that is, the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill. If its provisions are introduced, they will help greatly as regards exclusions. Is it likely that they will be introduced, because they will be more satisfactory than the exclusion part of this Bill relating to Scotland? I have not sat in Committee on the Bill, as has the noble Baroness, Lady David, but I have been a social worker. One of the most difficult things in the world is to know what to do when a child is alleged to have been physically or sexually abused. If one leaves the child at home and there is then further trouble, one gets into trouble. If one moves the child, one is introducing a second suffering. It is bad enough to have been abused but it is even worse to be removed from one's home and family and made to feel the guilty person. As the Minister said, that is exactly what happens with children.
I and my staff were so upset by such events that we persuaded the housing department to make available an empty flat. In such cases, and if the man would not move out of the home, we were able to offer to the mother and children a flat in which they could live while the case was being discussed. Often when the man was not guilty he agreed to move out and to live with his mother or a relative. I am a little worried about the exclusion provision.
Thirdly, I turn to the views of the children. That point was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. It is very difficult for social workers and the police to know whether to listen to the child and to believe him, to listen to the mother and to believe her or to listen to the father and to believe him. I am not sure whether we have properly worked out the issues relating to the views of the child, the mother and the father. I support the noble and learned Lord, but rather deferentially.
Although I do not understand the law of Scotland, I wish that England and Wales could have had the panel system. Many years ago I talked about that to Lord Kilbrandon who said that he was sorry that we had not adopted it. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will agree that in England and Wales there is too big a gap between the allegation being made and the case coming to court. Will that be minimised in Scotland? Social workers who deal with the child cannot question him and cannot give him psychological or psychiatric treatment for fear of interfering with the statement that he may make in court. Will that gap be shortened in Scotland? It is too long in England and Wales.
My next point relates to the training of social workers. The Clyde Report stated that social workers were not adequately trained. In this House two weeks ago I tabled a Motion proposing that the training of social workers should be at university level and for three years. Since the passing of the Children Act 1989, it has become evident that social workers are entitled to, and should have, longer

51
and better training. Has that been considered in relation to Scotland? I am sure that social workers in England and Wales will agree that there are not enough of them to carry out the work of the Children Act as it should be carried out. It is a heavy responsibility.
I turn now to resources, which I hardly like to mention. No Act of Parliament can be successful unless adequate resources are available. Have the provisions of the Bill been costed? Do we know exactly what the extra cost will be, including that for extra staff? Will adequate resources be made available to carry out the provisions of this extremely good Bill?
Finally, as regards adoption, perhaps I may inform your Lordships that in England and Wales a charitable organisation has set up an international adoption society. I wish to make it clear that there is considerable difficulty as regards the adoption of children from overseas, and in England and Wales we have started a society called Adoption International.
I ask your Lordships to forgive me for raising these issues when I know so little about what is happening in Scotland.
5.58 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by declaring an interest in that I have no fewer than five children living in Scotland. Unlike most interests declared at this stage, it is far from profitable. Indeed, it is highly costly.
We have had a wide-ranging and useful debate on what is generally agreed to be a major step in legislation relating to children in Scotland. It will set a clear legal framework for the future. It is in that context that I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, on his most thoughtful and constructive maiden speech. As Lord President of the Court of Session, he has brought to the debate wide-ranging experience, wisdom and insight. We are grateful to him for his contribution to our consideration of this important area of law. The House will look forward to his further contributions on this Bill and on other related matters.
As my noble and learned friend the Minister of State pointed out, the Bill is the culmination of a wide range of work. It draws on comprehensive reviews and inquiries into particular issues. A number of noble Lords have drawn attention to some of the precedents that lie behind the Bill. In particular, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, drew attention to the Scottish Law Commission and the Social Work Services Group. They are two bodies which have made a great contribution.
The Bill takes the opportunity to recast substantial parts of the legislation affecting children in order to bring it up to date both in form and substance. An undertaking on this scale inevitably raises complex questions. Today's debate illustrates that, in particular when "gap" speakers such as my noble friend Lady Faithfull can spring up with about 20 complex and technical questions. I shall have to write to her about some of them.
The Bill is founded on principles derived from the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child; namely, the principles that each child has the right to be treated as an
52
individual and to express views on his or her care; that each child has the right to protection from all forms of abuse, neglect or exploitation; that parents should normally be responsible for the upbringing of their children; that every effort should be made to preserve the child's family home, which is one of the underlying principles of Part I of the Bill, which my noble friend Lady Carnegy rightly emphasised; and finally, that any intervention by a public authority in the life of a child should be properly justified and should be supported by services from all relevant agencies working in collaboration.
In scope the Bill goes rather beyond the provision of the Children Act 1989 for England and Wales. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, was unnecessarily cynical about the delay that there has been between 1989 and the bringing forward of this Bill. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy pointed out, that time has been put to good use and very positive improvements have been made in the text of the Bill. The sensitivity that has been introduced generally makes the Bill better than it might have been had it been rushed out earlier.
The Bill will provide Scotland with its own children Act based on Scottish law and Scottish needs. The Bill has already been the subject of close scrutiny in another place and the Government have brought forward substantial amendments in response to that. Further issues have been raised today and I should like to respond to them. Before doing so, perhaps I may say that the Government welcome the continuing co-operative approach taken in relation to this legislation. We look forward to the discussions which will take place in Committee and on Report. I hope that further improvements will be made to the Bill before it becomes law. On the point which the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, made, I assure all noble Lords that amendments proposed to the Bill will be handled constructively and objectively on their merits.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, claims that Clauses 1 and 2 are without teeth. However, I must draw the noble Lord's attention to Clause 1(3) and Clause 2(4), which give title to sue in respect of both responsibilities and rights. In other words, those clauses allow either a child or a parent as appropriate to sue against the breach of a parental responsibility or infringement of a parental right.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, stressed the view that the Bill should not allow a parent who has deserted the family to return and seek parental responsibilities and rights. Clause 3 makes it clear that a father who is unmarried to the child's mother will not have responsibilities and rights but an interested and caring father can obtain such rights and responsibilities by drawing up an agreement with the mother of the child. Otherwise, such a father can obtain those responsibilities and rights only on application to the court for an order under Clause 11. I should emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that in such circumstances, the court will grant an order only if it is in the child's best interests to do so. Therefore, if the father has shown no previous interest in the child, it is hardly likely that the court will grant such an order without having before it considerable evidence that it would benefit the child so to do. This Bill certainly

53
does not provide what the noble Lord claimed that it may provide; namely, a statutory passport for a parent who has taken the easy way out.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, sought confirmation that under Clause 5 all baby-sitters should be aged 16 years or over. I confirm that that is the case. Clause 5(1) assumes that a person given temporary care of a child will be aged 16 years or over.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy was concerned with the responsibilities of parents who are separated and that they should consult each other. That has also been an anxiety expressed by Family Mediation Scotland. On Report in another place, Clause 6(1) was amended so that, in reaching a major decision concerning a parental responsibility or right, a parent should consult not only the child concerned but also the other parent. Thus, even after separation or divorce, we hope that both parents will continue to consult each other on matters affecting the child.
My noble friend Lord Balfour suggested that a provision is needed to allow a grandparent or aunt or uncle to share parental responsibilities or rights with the child's mother. Indeed, other noble Lords have also drawn attention to the status and role of relations other than the parents. Clause 11(3) allows for such persons to apply to the courts for parental responsibilities and rights. In considering that, the court will treat the child's welfare as its paramount consideration. However, as noble Lords will recognise, that is a formal step and there is nothing to prevent the child's mother relying on the assistance of other relations as happens on a day-to-day basis in many families.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—and this was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull—mentioned the challenges and difficulties involved in seeking the views of children and the way in which the rules of court might handle that. I understand the views expressed in relation to the formulation of detailed rules of court for taking the views of children. I hope that the Bill will provide an admirable framework for that to be done and that it will assist in consulting widely and on an informed basis as to the details of the necessary rules of court. On that issue, as on many others, we shall listen carefully to the views expressed today and at later stages of the Bill.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy stressed the benefits of mediation. I should point out to my noble friend that the Government have considered carefully whether it is necessary to have a reference to mediation in the Bill. I understand that the present arrangement whereby the courts can refer cases involving children to mediation under rules of court is working successfully. If it is necessary to extend that provision, that may be done also through the rules of court.
Noble Lords will be aware that in formulating rules of court, extensive consultation is undertaken with relevant interests wherever possible. However, I should stress to my noble friend that we shall watch developments south of the Border, especially in relation to proposals made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. We shall consider whether any fresh legislation is required for Scotland in the light of those developments.
54
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, also drew attention to some of those issues and I hope that some of the remarks which I have made will reassure her. In Scotland, courts can and do refer divorcing couples to mediation. Moreover, there are provisions in Clause 12 which require a court to postpone granting a decree in a divorce case until it is satisfied that satisfactory arrangements have been made for the children. While I shall look sympathetically at any suggestions to encourage further mediation, the Government are not convinced that the time is right for any steps which would involve, for example, centrally-funded mediation.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull drew attention to the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill. That Bill contains exclusion provisions for England and Wales only and relates to the Children Act 1989. The Children (Scotland) Bill contains provisions which are parallel to those provisions but which take account of the different body of law which exists in Scotland.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, and others have drawn attention to the difficult area of physical punishment for children. As many noble Lords will know, that issue was debated widely in another place and I predict confidently that it will be debated at the various stages of the Bill in this House. The view expressed then by the Government is that both the statutory law and common law as it stands already offers sufficient protection from assault by parents, teachers or others who have charge of children. We believe that that continues to be the case but we acknowledge that that area of activity commands considerable interest, and we shall no doubt discuss the finer points of that.
Many speakers referred to the problem and challenge of resources as they see it. However, I should stress that many of the proposals outlined in the Bill can be implemented with relatively little extra cost, but sufficient resources will be made available to fund new procedures and statutory requirements.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, asked how the resources needed for the young homeless have been calculated. Figures included in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill were derived from calculations set out in the Child Care Law Review and brought up to date to take account of inflation. The £4.5 million provision made reflects the cost of providing advice, guidance and assistance from the social work authority. It does not cover other forms of assistance which may be available such as housing benefit and support from the Department of Social Security; nor do the costs cover all homeless young people. The provision covers only those who were in the care of the local authority at the time of leaving school.
The importance of ensuring good aftercare for young people who were previously looked after by local authorities is self-evident. Local authorities will have made a considerable investment in such young people; residential care is not cheap. Effective aftercare makes obvious sense not only for the benefit of young persons but also to protect the investment of local authorities. The revised aftercare provisions in the Bill set out in Clause 25 are a significant improvement on existing legislation. They contain a new duty to assist 18 year-olds who were previously looked after by local authorities. A new power

55
is also proposed which will allow local authorities to provide further assistance until a young person reaches the age of 21. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, felt that we might instead place greater emphasis on the provision of advice on the services available. However, I draw his attention to Clause 17(2) where the duty to prepare children who are leaving care is spelt out specifically.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, my noble friend Lady Faithfull and other speakers focused on the age at which such local authority duties might cease. Certainly during the discussions in another place it was suggested that local authorities should have a duty to provide aftercare for young people up to the age of 21; indeed, some speakers suggested that that age limit should be increased to 25.
I have to tell the House that such extensions would not be helpful on two counts. First, they would make major resource demands on local authorities; and, secondly, while it is extremely difficult to quantify them, resources are finite. I take the point made by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and by my noble friend Lady Faithfull that costs may not be as great as has been assumed and that the cost generated by those who are not looked after properly might also be taken into account. However, we want to see services improved for those who most need them and not simply spread resources more widely. We are firmly of the view, therefore, that the duty and the resources should be concentrated on the most vulnerable youngsters; for example, 16 and 17 year-olds. We do not want to dilute that focus.
It is also worth recognising that we have proposed a new power under Clause 22 to allow local authorities to accommodate young persons up to the age 21 where that would safeguard or promote their welfare. That new provision, along with the enhanced aftercare powers, should ensure that local authorities have a sufficient range of services and powers to safeguard the welfare of vulnerable children and young persons. I should stress to the House, and specifically to my noble friend Lady Faithfull, that the Government have thought through the need for resources very carefully. We are certain that such resources are in place.
My noble friend Lord Balfour asked about the repeal of Section 25 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. He was concerned about the repeal of that section because it empowers the local authority to provide assistance for apprenticeships. I can assure him that local authorities will still have the necessary powers to assist as regards the financial costs of education and training under Clause 26 of the Bill.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, drew our attention to the Orkney children and their removal from the islands. Indeed, it has been asked fairly widely why in February 1991 those nine children had to be taken away from their home in South Ronaldsay. As she will know, the Orkney case was the subject of a very thorough public inquiry under the chairmanship of Lord Clyde. The decision to remove the children and how it was done was made by the social work authority, Orkney Islands Council. Its decision to remove the nine children from Orkney
56
reflected the number of children involved and the number of children's home and foster home places available in Orkney.
One of the recommendations made by Lord Clyde dealt with the need for Orkney to recruit more foster carers. The island's council has taken action on that recommendation. Removing a child from his or her home is a traumatic experience. It is clearly important not to remove a child to a completely different environment if it can be avoided. The expansion of foster places in Orkney is in part to reduce the need for children looked after by the local authority to be removed to the mainland.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, raised the question of appeals and expressed concern about the provisions for them in Clause 47. He wondered whether there might not be too many rungs in the ladder of provisions for appeals. In the light of the noble and learned Lord's comments, we shall certainly want to look again at the provisions in Committee. We are grateful to him for drawing our attention to the matter.
A number of speakers dwelt on the issue of exclusion orders. Such orders will no doubt be widely, deeply and thoroughly discussed in Committee and on Report. Suffice it for me to say at this stage, the Second Reading of the Bill, that the decision to introduce an exclusion order is very much in keeping with the broad thrust of the legislation, which focuses on the needs of children. The order provides for an abuser to be excluded from the family home on application by a local authority. It will thus allow the child to remain in familiar surroundings with supportive members of the family rather than be moved to foster or residential care away from home. That principle has been widely supported. As the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, knows, we shall be bringing forward government amendments to the clause. However, I can assure him at this stage that there is a right of appeal and the right to be heard by the person who is the subject of an exclusion order and that that right can be promptly exercised. But I believe that the other details that have been raised on the matter will be more successfully dealt with during our discussions on the clause in Committee.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, asked whether other relations could apply for an exclusion order. Under the provisions of the Bill, only a local authority can apply for an exclusion order, but a spouse can also apply for such an order under the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, felt that the definition of the words "in need" had been drawn too narrowly. Certainly the definition set out in Clause 84 is one that we believe quite properly targets the provision of services to those children most in need of assistance. However, in another place my honourable friend agreed to reconsider the definition of "in need" to make it reflect the positive promotion of a child's welfare. We still have the matter under consideration. No doubt it will be raised again in Committee.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull very properly drew attention to the needs and resources as regards training. We envisage that it will be necessary carefully to draw up an implementation plan for the Bill. Training has been mentioned on several occasions. We acknowledge that it has great importance. It will clearly be important to

57
sheriffs, children's panel members, reporters, social workers and other professional staff. We have already begun to identify the needs that will have to be met and have allocated £100,000 towards meeting them in the current financial year. We anticipate that those resources will be used to contribute to the preparation of training materials and training events for social work staff and children's panel members. It will be necessary to work out in detail the further training needs that will have to be addressed. But significant resources are already allocated to training for staff working in children's services, in voluntary organisations and in local authorities.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, quite correctly doubted the wisdom of an overarching principle. The matter was thoroughly debated in another place both in Committee and on Report. The Government have given careful consideration to the issues involved. It is necessary to take a hard look at what such a principle could possibly achieve without confusing the principles already laid out in different parts of the Bill.
Many detailed points have been made and questions lodged. If I have been unable to cover some of them in the time available to me this evening, I shall deal with them in writing. But I should like to conclude by saying that recommendations for improvements have formed and will continue to form an important part of the Bill. However, the Bill also builds on the successes of childcare with a greater emphasis on supporting families and the practice of keeping children in their families and communities wherever possible, while recognising that, for some, residential care may be the right choice. It builds on the strengths of the children's hearing system and the confidence in Scottish adoption law. It builds on the growing appreciation that we need to listen to children more and take their views into account. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said when
58
introducing this Bill, it is based on the view that we must do things with, and not to, families. I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask him to make every effort, as I am sure he will, to ensure that the government amendments which have all the hallmarks of being a multiplicity of amendments, are available to the Members of your Lordships' House well in advance of the dates for the Committee stage? The Minister will be well aware that a considerable number of amendments were introduced in another place, I believe either the night or the weekend before the matter came before the other place. As it happened, they were all government amendments which were purely technical. But the amendments which will be discussed here will be of some substance and it will not be good enough if they are made available to Members of this House a couple of days before the dates for the Committee stage of the Bill. I know that the Minister will make every effort in this regard, I merely put down a marker that, if a substantial number of amendments which require considerable consultation on the part of Members of your Lordships' House are tabled, that may affect the date of the Committee stage of the Bill.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I can certainly reassure the noble Lord as regards the timing with which the Government will lodge amendments. I also stress to all noble Lords who might otherwise be misled that many of the government amendments that were brought forward in another place were not technical amendments rushed in at the last minute. They were tabled in response to views that were expressed in another place. Those amendments, as I say, were produced in response to the views being expressed in the other Chamber.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past six o'clock.