Lords Sitting of 27 November 1996

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

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
Miss Elizabeth Conway Symons, having been created Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, of Vernham Dean in the County of Hampshire for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Blackstone and the Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde.
Lord MacLaurin of Knebworth
Sir Ian Charter MacLaurin, Knight, having been created Baron MacLaurin of Knebworth, of Knebworth in the county of Hertfordshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness O'Cathain and the Lord Macfarlane of Bearsden.

Message from the Queen
The Earl of Airlie: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament".

United Kingdom Legal Time Standard
3 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw Lord Tanlaw asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the legal time standard in the United Kingdom is currently Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) or Co-ordinated Universal Time (UTC).
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the Interpretation Act 1978 provides that, subject to the Summer Time Act 1972, whenever an expression of time occurs in an Act of Parliament, subordinate legislation, deeds and other documents, the time referred to shall, unless it is otherwise specifically stated, be held to be Greenwich Mean Time.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply confirming that GMT is the legal timescale. Does he agree that GMT is synonymous with UTC—atomic time—at zero longitude, and that GMT can also be Universal Time or UT1—astronomical time—at zero longitude? Does he further agree that GMT can also be Mean Solar Time—GMST—on the
258
Greenwich meridian? Is he aware that after 150 years Greenwich Mean Time has been removed from the list of international timescales in the current Astronomical Almanac for the reason given on sheet B5 which is, and I quote:
"Greenwich Mean Time is ambiguous"?
Would he therefore consider a much closer definition of Greenwich Mean Time to be necessary so that it can maintain its historical place among the world's timescales and so that the national timescale is one which is much more clearly defined than it is at the moment?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the temptation is to answer "yes". I fear, however, that the noble Lord deserves a slightly longer response than that. I regret to say that, scientifically, I do not agree with him that Greenwich Mean Time is the same as International Atomic Time. However, he will be reassured to know that, while it is not exactly identical with Co-ordinated Universal Time, Co-ordinated Universal Time is corrected to less than one second to ensure that they are more or less the same. For that reason we do not consider there is any necessity to adjust Greenwich Mean Time, which is not Greenwich Mean Time any more because it is not calculated on a mean—at noon. Such is the historical use of Greenwich Mean Time for the description that we do not consider there is any need to change that, although it is recognised that a number of other countries have shifted the legal base of their calculation of time to Co-ordinated Universal Time. I hope that is clear to the noble Lord. I cannot claim that it is clear to me.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I greatly welcome this Question from the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, because it was only a year or so ago that he was foremost among those supporting a subversive Motion to replace Greenwich Mean Time with Central European Time?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I do not welcome this question from the noble Lord. That is a rather different issue from whether we should move to Central European Time. As I understand it, the difficulty arises from the irregular elliptical course that the earth takes round the sun and for that time, and every now and again, there has to be some correction. That is made by resort to Co-ordinated Universal Time. There has been the introduction, which astonishes me, of some 29 leap seconds in our calendar since 1958.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, given the undoubted merits of Greenwich Mean Time, does my noble and learned friend agree that there is a case tor adhering to it in the summer months as well as in the winter months?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I hope that this question is not intended to lure me into a debate about the desirability of summer time or Central European Time. With that in mind I shall restrict myself to saying that we should maintain our use of Greenwich

259
Mean Time for legal purposes. Whether it is changed for practical purposes for summer time is a completely different issue.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, this is obviously an important matter for scientists, but perhaps a little less so than for lawyers. Is the Minister aware that it is obviously more complicated than simply adjusting the pennies on the balance wheel of Big Ben? Can he tell us who is responsible for atomic time catching up with solar time, and how is that agreed?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, Co-ordinated Universal Time is calculated by using no fewer than 200 atomic clocks situated around the world in 50 countries. Then the calculation is made by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. I wish to stress that although it is located in Paris, it has nothing to do with the European Union.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, while appreciating that my question may be slightly wide of the mark, can my noble and learned friend confirm to the House whether it is true that France is abandoning Central European Time in 1997? What is his opinion as to what that will do to the times as regards Europe and the United Kingdom?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, that is going slightly wide of the Question. It is entirely a matter for France to make its own determination. To bring this back to the Question, I understand that in calculating what is its time it will have resort to Co-ordinated Universal Time.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, can the Minister clarify one point? I agree that there is a very small difference between UTC and Greenwich Mean Time and that it would normally not apply, except perhaps in the Millennium. Therefore, supposing that GMT is running more than half a second behind UTC, will the Millennium start at midnight, according to UTC, or will we have to wait to the nearest second for GMT to catch up with it? Will the first British citizen be born in the new era with "midnight" shown on his birth certificate and UTC or will it show one second after midnight according to GMT?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the difficulty at the moment is that I am not sure it can be accurately calculated whether or not at the point of the Millennium Greenwich Mean Time will be ahead or behind Co-ordinated Universal Time. The only confident assertion that I can make is that it will be 0.9 seconds one side of it.
Lord Elton: My Lords, having startled the House by saying that Greenwich Mean Time is no longer calculated on a mean, will my noble and learned friend tell us in the meantime what "mean" means?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, it is not calculated on the mean. It was originally based on a hypothetical mean sun and that was abandoned in 1925. A different basis has been used since then. The calculation is made from midnight, which allows for more accurate astronomical calculations. It also allows for variations that occur when the sun is behind or ahead of time in February and November. I hope that that is a clear enough explanation.
Noble Lords Noble Lords: Next Question!

Vehicle Tracing Procedures
3.9 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce obligatory, immediate recording of the sale or export of motor vehicles and their main components in order to assist identification and reduce theft.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, motorists are already obliged to notify the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency when a vehicle changes hands or is exported abroad. As to legislation to make the marking of vehicle components compulsory, we are examining what practical crime prevention benefits would result from legislation on this issue and will be inviting the police to comment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply. Is she aware of an estimate that this country has the highest rate of theft of vehicles in the developed world because they can so easily be disposed of without trace? Have the Government consulted the police about improving identification and banning trade in anonymous main components on the lines adopted in the United States?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, comparisons between different international criminal justice systems are difficult and misleading. England and Wales have an extremely high recording rate for thefts of vehicles of up to 97 per cent. It is the trend that is important and, happily, that is downwards. Although the figures are still high, as my noble friend will agree vehicle crime has decreased by 17 per cent. over the past three years.
There has been full consultation between the police and the appropriate government departments on this issue. In particular, there has been consultation with the DVLA. The joint notification scheme, of which my noble friend is aware, whereby the buyer and the seller are obliged to notify the DVLA on the same document when a vehicle changes hands, is due to be implemented in the spring of 1997. It will assist the police when checking the ownership of stolen vehicles.

Cuba: Trading Relations
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to persuade the Government of the United States of America to end their boycott of Cuba and to allow normal trading relations to be resumed.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the United Kingdom voted with European Union partners in support of the Cuban resolution condemning the US embargo against Cuba at the UN General Assembly on 12th November.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. However, is she aware that the boycott is now having an impact upon what was once a very good health service in Cuba and that that is creating a shortage of medicine and is affecting children? I ask this Question as a member of the council of the Save the Children Fund. What more can be done to persuade the US Government that the Helms-Burton Act will certainly not bring down Castro, but will simply result in making poor people poorer because Cuba is unable to earn its living as a trading nation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am aware of the problems with medicines. That is why we have been contributing through the European aid programme. We have also been giving emergency relief to help the children of Cuba to whom the noble Baroness referred.
On the main point of the Question, we have felt it right that we should clearly reject the US approach in the Helms-Burton embargo. That is why we have supported the Cuban resolution. We know that the Helms-Burton provisions may have been congressionally driven, but it is possible for the new White House to suspend that legislation—and that is exactly what it should do. Although we have not changed our attitude or our desire to promote political and economic reform in Cuba, we believe that that is best achieved by trade and influence. However, we shall continue our strong criticism of Cuba's record on human rights and fundamental freedoms because it is right to do that. However, it is not right to seek to put the second matter right by the implementation of the Helms-Burton Act.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us how effective the Helms-Burton Act is and whether there is any subsisting trade between Cuba and the United States?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. On carefully probing the matter, I was amazed to learn that between 1994 and 1996 it is estimated that six top US
262
international telephone companies transferred no less than 76.8 million US dollars to the Cuban telephone company, Etecsa, as its share of the revenue generated by the rising number of calls to Cuba from the US. That is continuing; so there is trade despite Helms-Burton. That fact should be known.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Helms-Burton Bill is objectionable not purely because of its effect on the health service in Cuba and on the economy of Cuba, but also because of the extra-territoriality that it involves, which also applies to the d'Amato Bill?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. The blocking statute which was taken through Congress covers the d'Amato legislation, which is the legislation against Iran and Libya and companies which trade with those countries. Provisions on that are contained in the European Union regulation on Helms-Burton but, as yet, the United States has not implemented legislation which covers the d'Amato Bill. Nevertheless, it is very serious because of its extra-territoriality, which is why we shall continue to try to change the performance of the US Government on this matter and to ensure that the White House suspends the legislation at its next available opportunity.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the Government are to be congratulated on being prepared to stand up to our most powerful ally. Does the Minister agree that the role of a good ally is not to be afraid to criticise a powerful friend when that friend is in the wrong? However, is the Minister aware that it is suggested that the role of the Cuban émigrés, particularly in Florida and in other parts of America, is part of the reason why the United States Government are so intransigent on this matter? Could the Minister suggest to the American Government that the role of those émigrés in Florida, and their reliability, may be no greater than that of émigrés from the Conservative Party in this country?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am not sure that I followed the noble Lord's last question and I was rather shocked by his first comment because he agreed with me, and that is a rare event. It is absolutely clear that the way to change the mind of a government on matters about which you disagree is by contact. That is why we shall maintain our strong representations and our criticism of Cuba's record on human rights and fundamental freedoms. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree with that. At the same time, however, we shall seek to change the position of the United States, which is an illogical position given the answer for which I was asked by my noble friend earlier.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether any British companies are now in danger of falling foul of the Helms-Burton law and being blacklisted in the US? I understand that that now seems likely to happen to some Canadian companies. In the light of what the Minister has said this afternoon

263
about the Government's policy on this matter, what advice are the Government now giving to companies that wish to trade with Cuba?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we have condemned the unjustified and unacceptable action of banning British businessmen from the US under Title IV. That is quite wrong. No UK citizen should be targeted in that fashion in whatever way has occurred or is likely to occur. On trade with Cuba, our advice is that regular trade should continue. That is why we had DTI-sponsored representation at the Havana International Trade Fair earlier this month, which 36 British companies attended. A further DTI-sponsored trade mission is due to go there next year. It is interesting to note the great increase in UK exports to Cuba. They were up 71 per cent. in the first nine months of this year. That is a very good record. Imports from Cuba—important to that country—are also up.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, would the Minister agree that regional self-help, including Latin and Caribbean countries, could be a useful initiative given that there are many issues where US policy undermines development?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that regional self-help anywhere in the world can be immensely useful. Nothing better helps trade to take off or business to multiply than people being involved with their neighbours in making trading understandings work well. That includes reducing barriers to trade. It is not just a question of the extra-territoriality of the Helms-Burton measure; it is the fact that that is a restriction on trade.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government suggest to the United States Government that it might be as well—they could do so of their own accord—to follow the example of His Holiness the Pope who is paying a visit to Cuba as an act of friendship and reconciliation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we sincerely hope that the visit of His Holiness will be a good one. I rather doubt whether he needs the permission of Helms-Burton to go there. He has received an invitation from the leader of Cuba, Mr. Castro. We look forward to good common sense being talked by His Holiness when he is there.

"Sea Empress" Inquiry
3.20 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they can report in the inquiry into the sinking of the "Sea Empress".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the principal phase of the investigation is now complete. The MAIB will be consulting soon any person
264
who is likely to be adversely affected by the draft report, as is required by the regulations. The Chief Inspector has advised that he is on target to submit his final report to the Secretary of State in February. In addition, interim recommendations have been made and published.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I do not believe that today the report can be questioned because it is not yet complete. Is it not a fact that for a number of years the south and south-east coast of England, the northern coast of Scotland, the Shetland Islands and now the South Wales coast have endured massive oil spills as a result of accidents that have done enormous damage to those areas and the seas bounding them? Further, is it not a fact that when investigated most of these so-called accidents are proved to have resulted from neglect of those in command of vessels having entered areas that perhaps they should not have entered? Irrespective of the date when the report is completed, can the Minister guarantee that where such negligence takes place the full cost of any remedial treatment is borne by the culprits involved?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I certainly believe that often human factors are to blame for serious accidents that have occurred. We will take the final recommendations of the Marine Accident Investigation Branch very seriously indeed. But it is worth noting that the whole area of maritime safety has moved forward considerably since the publication of the report Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and that the vast majority of those recommendations have been accepted by the Government.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, it is my understanding that the inquiry has recommended that all in bound vessels under pilotage for Milford Haven shall take a preferred route. Can the Minister inform the House whether or not that recommendation has been agreed with the Milford Haven pilots who, after all, have immense knowledge of local tidal conditions in the entrance to the Haven?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, clearly the pilotage issues are of considerable consequence. An interim recommendation relating to pilotage was made by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch and addressed to Milford Haven Port Authority on 20th September. The port authority issued a press notice which stated that it would initiate discussions with pilots and shipowners about the proposed change to the approach arrangements.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, am I correct to conclude from the Minster's answer that the recommendation has not been agreed with Milford Haven pilots?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord should conclude exactly what I have said. This is a complex recommendation contained in a detailed document issued by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. It is not a simple matter. We welcome additional information provided by the pilots themselves and consultation with them. It is important that we get the matter right in the first instance, and that is what is being attempted.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister continue to set his face against reconvening the Donaldson Committee to consider the wider implications following the "Sea Empress" incident than would be within the remit of the Marine Accident Investigation Branch? Is he aware that the noble and learned Lord accedes to the suggestion that I have just made and believes that it is desirable so that the issue can be looked at in a much broader way than is currently happening?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we have discussed this in detail before. The position has not changed since then. It is only a short time since the noble and learned Lord completed his inquiry and published his report. The Government have accepted some 91 out of 103 recommendations. That report has received widespread international agreement. The Government have said that they will look very carefully at the final recommendations of the Marine Accident Investigation Branch and the recommendations of the report of the noble and learned Lord and consider whether further examination is justified.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, bearing in mind that when such incidents occur either minor or massive spoilation of the coastline occurs, very often the local authorities and people of the area face the job of carrying out remedial treatment. Is there any criterion by which the Government can provide help quickly with the very heavy cost that falls on local authorities or the people in the area as a result of an incident for which they are not remotely to blame?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the marine pollution control unit of the Coastguard Agency maintains stockpiles of equipment to deal quickly with oil spillages at sea. Indeed, there are contracts under way with a company to provide airborne spray of dispersants into the sea. In addition, there is an agreed international compensation scheme, the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund, under which clean-up costs can be reclaimed.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am referring to the possibility of resources being made available to remedy damage to activities such as fishing and other matters on which the people in the area rely for their livelihoods. Is there any medium by which the Government can provide aid immediately to the area,
266
not just to get rid of the oil—that is a separate job—but to reconstitute industries that have been severely damaged?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, yes. Under the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund fishery claims can be, and indeed have been, made. It is for fishermen to put forward and justify their claims and the fund then processes them. At the moment it is paying out claims at the level of 75 per cent.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, have the Government reached a view as to whether double-skinned tankers would be significantly safer and reduce the level of spillage, offset against the higher cost involved in converting tanker fleets?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, this is one of the issues that is being examined by the MAIB inquiry. However, double hulls were looked at by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. He concluded that they were not necessarily a panacea and had considerable disadvantages in terms of gas collecting between the hulls, increased risk of corrosion and difficulty of inspection. There are advantages and disadvantages, but the issue is being considered.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I declare an interest as President of United Kingdom Pilots (Marine). Bearing in mind a Question raised by one of my noble friends a short time ago, can the Minister give an assurance that pilots will be consulted before the carrying out of any tests such as those recommended by the MAIB concerning the use of a large number of tankers to prove the practicability of making an approach to the west channel entrance from the sea along the line of the 022 outer leads? In future will there be clear consultation with the pilots? Pilots came to the conclusion that the ideas advanced then were impracticable and unsafe. With respect, to fail to consult the pilots seems to me to be a serious omission.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am not at all sure about the accusation that the noble Lord makes. In answer to a question from one of his noble friends I believe I said that the port authority had already confirmed that there would be consultation with pilots on the interim recommendation.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that local people are deserving of great credit for the way that they cleared up the pollution on the Pembrokeshire coast following the "Sea Empress" disaster?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, yes. There was a massive operation in which some 600 people were involved in the clean up. That was incredibly successful. One has only to visit those beaches now to see how clean they are. I believe that the receipt of a blue flag award is a major achievement in the

267
personal endeavour of the people of that area to bring those beaches back to the condition in which they were before the incident.

Scottish Borders Council (Jim Clark Memorial Rally) Order Confirmation Bill
3.30 p.m.
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936), deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Western Isles Council (Berneray Causeway) Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936), deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In moving the Motion perhaps I may take the opportunity to draw your Lordships' attention to the guidance on the speakers list that speeches in both debates should be limited to 14 minutes.
Moved, that the debate on the Motion in the name of the Earl Russell set down for this day shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Dahrendorf to two-and-a-half hours.—( Viscount Cranborne)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Assistance to Opposition Parties
3.31 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Motion relates, as your Lordships have already discovered, to financial assistance for opposition parties and seeks to establish in your Lordships' House a scheme similar to that which another place has enjoyed for some 20 years under the name of Short money, so-called because it was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. Your Lordships will already have spotted that we specialise in illogicalities in this House.
It has been the practice for the opposition parties to make some contribution from their Short money to their colleagues in this House, but I believe that the time is now right to provide noble Lords opposite with some support, as of right, which does not depend on the generosity of their colleagues in another place.
268
In formulating the proposals, I should like to pay tribute to the advice and assistance which has been given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in what I believe has been a happy co-operation in this matter. I should like to place on record my gratitude to him for that.
Paragraph (1) of the Motion establishes the principle of making financial support available to the opposition parties in carrying out their parliamentary business. Paragraph (2) specifies the maximum amounts that the parties may claim. What the Government propose is that in a full year the Official Opposition should be able to claim up to £100,000 and the second largest opposition party up to £30,000. Those amounts are to be uprated on 1st April each year by reference to the increase in the RPI. The commencement of the scheme is to be back-dated to 1st October this year. Accordingly, the Motion provides for half a full year's money for the six months from October this year to March next year, and for the full rate to apply with the appropriate RPI enhancement from the start of the next financial year.
Paragraph (3) imports into the scheme the tried and tested safeguards which are to be found in the Short money scheme itself. Any party claiming assistance will have to tell the Accounting Officer—that is to say, the Clerk of the Parliaments—on what it has spent the money and certify that the expenses have been incurred exclusively in relation to the party's parliamentary business. It will also have to have its accounts audited each year.
I should emphasise that payments will be made to parties not to individuals. It is not the purpose of this scheme to introduce by the back-door any system of payments for Front Bench spokesmen on the grounds that while the House is composed as it is, the central part of the character of your Lordships' House is that of an amateur assembly.
Paragraphs (4) and (5) make the necessary provision for a year in which a general election takes place. Paragraph (6) defines a number of expressions used in the Motion. I should like to make it clear that the establishment of this scheme will make no difference to the existing Short money scheme. If the parties which are eligible to claim Short money choose to allocate or to continue to allocate a proportion of it to their colleagues in this House, they are of course entirely free to do so. That is, as has always been the case, a matter for them. It is certainly not a matter for the Government.
The essential requirement is that any money claimed under the scheme, or under the Short money scheme, must be spent on carrying out the parties' parliamentary business. I should not wish to pretend to your Lordships that the figures contained in the Motion are the result of any precise mathematical calculations, particularly after this afternoon's performance of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser. Unlike the calculation of Greenwich Mean Time, they are round figures. Modest though they are, I believe that the sums are large enough to meet the costs of a small research staff to support the work of the Front Benches opposite. I believe also, and hope that the House will

269
agree, that we have struck a fair balance between the claims of the Official Opposition and those of the second largest opposition party.
I have to say, if noble Lords opposite do not find this remark too patronising—it is not proffered in that spirit—that I move the Motion with a degree of trepidation, because those of us on this side of the House fear greatly what will be the effect on the effectiveness of both opposition parties, which we feel to be quite effective enough as they are.
I invite your Lordships to support the measure, because it will assist in ensuring an even more efficient and well-informed opposition, and that is in the interests of your Lordships' House. It will enhance the value of our deliberations, and will, I hope, enable this House to make an even greater contribution to our parliamentary system.
Moved, That, in the opinion of this House, the provisions of this Resolution should have effect in relation to the giving of financial assistance to opposition parties in this House:

(1) Financial assistance shall be available to assist the Opposition and the second largest opposition party in carrying out their Parliamentary business.

(2) The maximum amounts of financial assistance which may be given to the Opposition and to the second largest opposition party respectively shall be—

(a) for the period beginning with 1st October 1996 and ending with 31st March 1997, £50,000 and L15,000;

(b) for the year beginning with 1st April 1997, f100,000 and £30,000, but increased in each case by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for March 1997 has increased compared with the index for March 1996, and (if the resulting amount is not a whole number of pounds) rounded to the nearest pound; and

(c) for each subsequent year, the maximum amount for the previous year but increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for the previous March has increased compared with the index for the March before that, and (if the resulting amount is not a whole number of pounds) rounded to the nearest pound.

(3) Any claims for financial assistance under this Resolution are to be made to the Accounting Officer of the House; and a party claiming such assistance shall—

(a) furnish that Officer with a statement of the facts on which the claim is based;

(b) certify to that Officer that the expenses in respect of which the assistance is claimed have been incurred exclusively in relation to the party's Parliamentary business; and

(c) as soon as practicable after each 31st March following the passing of this Resolution, furnish that Officer with the certificate of an independent professional auditor to the effect that all expenses in respect of which the party claimed financial assistance during the period ending with that day were incurred as mentioned in sub-paragraph (b) above.

270

(4) In the case of any year in which there is a General Election—

(a) the period ending immediately before the date of the Election and the period beginning with that date shall be treated as separate periods;

(b) the maximum amount which may be given to each party for each of those periods shall be a proportionate part (rounded to the nearest pound) of the maximum amount for the year in question; and

(c) in relation to the first such period, paragraph (3)(c) above shall have effect as if a reference to the last day of the period were substituted for the reference to 3Ist March.

(5) In the event of a General Election before 1st April 1997, the period beginning with 1st October 1996 and ending with 31st March 1997 shall be treated as a year for the purposes of paragraph (4) above.

(6) In this Resolution—

(a) "the Opposition" means the party in opposition to Her Majesty's Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons;

(b) "the second largest opposition party" means the party in opposition to Her Majesty's Government (other than the Opposition) with the greatest number of Members of this House amongst its members;

(c) "the retail prices index" means the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Office for National Statistics (or any index or figures published by that Office in place of that index); and

(d) "year" means a year beginning with 1st April.—(Viscount Cranborne.)

Lord Richard: My Lords, I support the Leader of the House in his moving of this Resolution. Perhaps I may start by thanking him for the kind words he said about me, and echo them in relation to the part that he has played in arriving at this conclusion. I have little to say about the terms of the Resolution itself. The provisions relating to safeguards, audits and that type of provision are clear, well set out and sensible.
It seems right to us that there should be provision for the support of opposition parties in this House as well as in the other place. It is right, too, that that support should be separate from the overall allocation of the Short money. This Resolution, having established that principle and set up that support, I am sure that, in accordance with well known precedent, will soon become known as Cranborne money. I shall forbear, out of my natural discretion, from commenting upon what I am sure is a pure coincidence of timing between the Government's acceptance of our much repeated plea for support for the opposition in this House and the approach of the general election which may provide a change of government.
Serendipity, which my dictionary defines as "discovery by happy accident", is a wondrous thing, and I am delighted to see it operate so effectively on the Government Benches this afternoon.
Perhaps I may make it clear that we support the Motion with the intention that it will last until the general election. As I think is well known, it is our

271
view that the whole question of the financing of political parties is an issue which will require full and detailed examination. If therefore we become a government, and if we proceed to such an examination, inevitably the issue of Cranborne money will be one of those issues which may well fall to be reconsidered.
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for what he said about my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench. It was kind of him to say what he did and we appreciate it. I commend this Motion to the House as a modest but much needed recognition of the extraordinary amount of work that my colleagues do, almost all of which is at present unpaid. I commend the Motion to the House.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard. We welcome the constructive discussions that we have had with the Government on this matter and the terms of the Motion. It is right that such money should be ring-fenced as regards financial support for Opposition parties. Money is to be made directly available to this House and we do not have to rely on our colleagues in the House of Commons.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I consider that after the general election there will have to be a wider discussion of the financing of political parties. Subject to that, I welcome the Motion unreservedly.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, puts a time factor on his support for the Motion. Is it right or is it wrong? If something better can be introduced, why must we wait until election time? If there is such an improvement, why was it not taken into account when the decision was made?
As regards payment, continual changes to the system that we adopt are undesirable. Many of our traditions have been based upon the experience of undertaking parliamentary work. I should like to believe that this is not a temporary measure and I hope that the whole issue will not be turned upside down again "after the election", as the noble Lord mentioned.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in the debate. Far be it from me, a humble Back-Bencher, to contribute to a matter which has already been agreed by all Members of the Front-Benches and the usual channels. However, I took slight exception to one of the phrases which the noble Viscount the Leader of the House used in his introduction. He described this House as an amateur House, which implies that it is unpaid. I believe that it would be more correct to say that we are a very badly paid House.
It may be useful to speak for the record because there is a great deal of misunderstanding outside this House about remunerations or allowances for its Members. It is worth while pointing out that, apart from travelling, secretarial and overnight expenses, which might be considered to be legitimate expenses at a rate comparable to the other place, what we might describe as our pay—the
272
out-of-pocket allowances of just £30 a day—equates to between £4,000 and £5,000 a year. If that is considered to be the rate for the job for Members of this House, I believe that it is rather low and I am sure that that view will find a resonance around the Chamber. It is useful that the wider public should be aware of that fact and I hope that the Leader of the House will take the opportunity to correct the misapprehension to which he may have contributed in his opening remarks.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken, in particular to the two Front-Bench spokesmen and to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. He embodies the proper suspicion of any Back-Bencher of any Motion on which the Front-Benchers agree. I can assume only that his natural reluctance to spend public money activates what he has to say.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that I do not know who took the initiative, but I would be loath to claim that it was me—
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Viscount got the money!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, if the noble Lord took the initiative, which I seem to remember he did—although, as he rightly points out, I got the money—I can assume only that, in view of his enthusiasm, it is he who expects to be occupying this seat instead of me after the next general election. I shall not interfere in any way with what, under the unlikely circumstances of the party opposite winning the next election, will be a delightful argument as to the proper way to finance political parties. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. However, I say to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls that we must address the world as it is rather than as we would wish it to be, and I have attempted to do that in my response to noble Lords' representations.
As regards expenses, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that with the greatest respect I regard the word "amateur" as a compliment when addressed to your Lordships' House—
Noble Lords Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I owe the House an interim report. In response to the inquiries of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I have made representations to the Senior Salaries Review Body. I hope that the beginning of a re-examination by Sir Michael Perry and his myrmidons will begin shortly.
I believe that the basis of our expenses is no more than a genuine attempt to meet the realistic expenses of your Lordships' House and not, as the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, said, as a way of paying ourselves a small salary.
Noble Lords Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Travel Expenses: Lords' Spouses
3.46 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It provides for the spouses of Members of your Lordships' House to make two journeys per year in order to attend parliamentary occasions. This will be an extension of your Lordships' existing entitlement and the rules and procedures will be the same.
This facility was recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body in its report last July. The review body recognised that there are parliamentary occasions when your Lordships might expect to be accompanied by their spouses, and that it is therefore reasonable that they should be reimbursed for the cost of their journeys. The Motion before the House today does not seek to define for your Lordships what is a parliamentary occasion. Like a number of things I can think of, we would expect to recognise it when we see it!
We in this House who hold ministerial or other paid office are already reimbursed in this respect on the same basis as Members in another place, and so will not be eligible for this new provision.
I welcome the proposal before your Lordships today as a useful and justifiable improvement in arrangements and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That this House approves the following proposals—

(1) The facilities available to a Member of this House in respect of journeys made in connection with attendance at the House shall be made available in respect of journeys made by the spouse of a Member in connection with attendance at a Parliamentary occasion.

(2) A Member may not make claims under this Resolution in relation to more than two Parliamentary occasions in any year (beginning with 1st January).

(3) This Resolution does not apply in respect of journeys made by the spouse of a Member in whose case paragraph (4) of the Resolution of 25th July 1983 applies.—(Viscount Cranborne.)

Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I welcome the new concession, small though it is, but wish to know what is meant by "a parliamentary occasion" and who determines it. Does it mean a specific event such as the opening of Parliament, or does it mean any day of a parliamentary sitting at which the Member is present?
Will the noble Viscount the Leader of the House explain paragraph (3), which states that the Resolution does not apply in respect of journeys made by the spouse of a Member and refers to a Resolution of 20th July 1983? Does that mean that certain Members can claim in excess of two visits? If they can, what is the business for which they can claim them?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make the point clearly to the noble Lord, Lord Dean. In retrospect, I do not believe that I did. I referred to the 15 journeys a year for which spouses of Members of
274
another place can claim and for which Members of the Front-Bench qualify. That is what the third paragraph refers to.
As regards parliamentary occasions, I had thought that I had tried to answer that question in my introductory remarks.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sorry to come back briefly on this point, but there is not a full category of those for whom Members in another place receive travel warrants. Each year they receive a number of travel warrants for their children and secretaries to make visits to the House of Commons. Therefore, if a Member's wife is his full-time secretary he has a glut of travel warrants. For that reason, I believe that we are treated tardily, even though we are now granted two.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong this discussion too much, although I recognise the noble Lord's concern. The two cases are not identical. The conditions attached to the use of 15 journeys per annum by Members of the Front Bench in your Lordships' House and the Government Front Bench are similar to those in force for Members of another place. The two journeys a year which are the subject of this Resolution are clearly drafted in order to implement the recommendation of the SSRB in full in this respect. Your Lordships have accepted in principle that it would be wise in matters of expenses for us to refer to an outside authority if only to deflect accusations of self-indulgence, however ill-founded, which unfortunately could all too easily come our way.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am sorry to pursue this but, like the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, it would be very helpful to Members of the House if the parliamentary occasion provision was more clearly defined. Those of us who travel long distances to come to this House are away from home a great deal in pursuing our duties in the House. I do not know why it is regarded as unsatisfactory simply to provide for travel expenses, which are considerable if you live 600 miles away. I do not know why this should not be granted in the interests simply of good, civilised marital relationships.
Noble Lords Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: One's wife should be able to come down here without a clear definition of a parliamentary responsibility. I urge the noble Lord the Leader of the House to provide a clearer definition. The vouchers that are applied next door do not define that the spouse of a Member of Parliament would qualify for a voucher to come down here only on a parliamentary occasion. It is regarded as sensible that vouchers should be supplied.
If two vouchers are supplied, I do not think we would be overdoing it to ask that travel arrangements for one's wife could be made without the necessity of the parliamentary occasion provision.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am getting a bit lost. I read this and it seemed to me to be quite simple

275
and self-explanatory. A parliamentary occasion, as I understood it, was an occasion which takes place in Parliament.
Who decides what is a parliamentary occasion when they put in a voucher to claim for their spouse's attendance will be the individual Member himself or herself. In other words, if I am asking a Question on a Tuesday afternoon and I decide that that is, for the purposes of my wife, a parliamentary occasion that I wish her to attend, as I understand it she will be entitled to a voucher in order to come and listen to her husband make a fool of himself in public.
That applies to all Members of this House, in the same way as it applies to Members in another place. The difference is that we get two and they get 15. That can be a matter of grievance and irritation, not only for my noble friends behind me but for other Members of the House. As the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said earlier, Sir Michael Perry and the Senior Salaries Review Body are now looking at this whole matter again. The sensible thing for noble Lords to do at this stage is to grasp with both hands the opportunity of getting their spouses here on two occasions and allow those of us who will be going back to Sir Michael Perry to say to him: "Look, the House is grateful for two, but in the interests of the marital relations of their Lordships we think it should be more than two".
If that is the position—and that is how I understood it before this discussion started this afternoon—I have no hesitation in commending it to the House. If that is not the position, and we have to define a parliamentary occasion, that would be fraught with the most immense difficulty and is not a process through which I would care to go.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I am particularly pleased to see this Resolution before us. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was sitting opposite until a few minutes ago, and I was reminded that many years ago, when he was Leader of the House, I led a delegation of Scottish Peers on this subject. We were very kindly received by him and strongly supported, and we thought a result was accomplished then. Unfortunately, the leadership changed and his successor did not feel able to pursue the matter. I am reminded that if one lives long enough the apparently impossible can be accomplished.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Young People
3.56 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to call attention to the practical problems which diminish the ability of young people to make their full contribution to society; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I would like to say how warmly I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Enniskillen. It seems barely a moment since I listened to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack make exactly the same wish to me. I am sure
276
that the noble Earl will find, as I did, that the reputation of this House for generosity to maiden speakers is entirely justified. I look forward to hearing him.
I must declare a variety of interests. First, I must declare an interest as a parent of two recently graduated sons. I must declare an interest as a university teacher, and in many of the points I make I will be thinking of the experience of pupils to whom I have listened. I must declare a non-pecuniary interest as patron of the Trust for the Study of Adolescence, by whom, among others, I am advised.
Any Liberal is used to addressing subjects in the Gladstonian language of rights. Any Liberal is used to warming at such language. I trust that my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead will forgive me if I say that, on occasion, large doses of Gladstone may be like large helpings of Christmas pudding. But I say that as one who likes Christmas pudding.
Today I take the opening quotation—the theme of my remarks—from another flavour within the party, Lord Palmerston, on Catholic emancipation: it is not expedient to exclude so many able persons from the public service.
I am concerned with the difficulties facing young people in the way of achieving independence; an independent establishment, an independent job, earning their living. In the words of the Trust for the Study of Adolescence, it takes longer to become independent these days. Speaking as a parent, I agree entirely.
The figures make some fairly compelling points. Unemployment among 16 to 24 year-olds is nearly double the national average; 15.4 per cent. against 8.5 per cent. The gap between the rate of youth unemployment and the national average rose in the three years between 1992 to 1995 from 67 per cent. to 81 per cent.
It is not only a matter of unemployment; there is also under-employment. The proportion of 16 to 24 year-old men in temporary jobs is more than four times as high as for 25 to 55 year-olds. One would expect a discrepancy, but not one quite so large. I do not believe that when I was that age the discrepancy was anything like as large. I did not know how lucky I was.
Among those earning £2.50 an hour or less, 16 to 24 year-olds account for one in every three. Young people's pay, as a proportion of adult earnings, fell between 1985 and 1995 by 6 to 8 per cent. for men and by 8 to 12 per cent. for women. That is a discrepancy to which I hope the Equal Opportunities Commission will pay attention. It must be of concern to any Chancellor of the Exchequer. The public sector borrowing requirement, which is still serious, even if not desperate, is something which needs attention, and it is a revenue problem as much as it is a spending problem. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, on 13th November, challenged opposition parties to recognise and welcome the fall in unemployment. I am happy to do that; it gives me great pleasure. However, although the fall is genuine, it does not mean that we should be satisfied with where we find ourselves because it is not only a matter of total unemployment. It is also, as every young person

277
knows—usually from personal experience—a matter of gross under-employment. The economy does not seem to be creating the stock of reliable, permanent, full-time jobs to which people used to look forward. That may be partly a matter of what Professor Handy refers to as a portfolio of jobs. It may be partly insufficient economic activity. Either way it calls for adjustments which we have not yet made.
There is, in fact, a phrase to cover low-wage, part-time temporary jobs. They have come to be known as "McJobs". The Chancellor of the Exchequer should be aware that a "McJob" does not usually yield as much revenue to the Exchequer as does a real job. Therefore, we need some real jobs.
It should also be causing us concern that among the people who appear as homeless in St. Mungo's Hostel no fewer than 20 per cent. have a university degree. We are producing more university graduates than the labour market is capable of mopping up; we should be thinking about that. The Trust for the Study of Adolescence says—I am sure, from my own experience, it is right—that one of the real problems which young people face is the attitude of adults who regard them as being irresponsible and immature. A young person accused of being immature may well fall back on the reply of Senator Fulbright, as he later became, who, on being taken to task for becoming a college president at the premature age of 30, said, "I understand objections are made against me on the grounds of my youth. I can only say that I am aware of the defect and daily efforts are being made to correct it".
There is nothing new about this, of course. I have a quotation here which shows just the same sort of attitude towards young people:
"contempt of all dutiful submitting to supreme authority; as the want of that due discipline and correction, wherewith men ought to be framed and smooth in their minority, and tender age… The coming generation will bring in such a torrent of vice and corruption, as will over-run the world, with rudeness, lewdness and extreme barbarity".
That was the vicar of St. Giles-in-the-Fields preaching in his parish church in 1627.
There really is not anything new about it. I once listened to a very fascinating reading of a paper at my postgraduate seminar by an American colleague from Colorado who traced back into the Middle Ages what she described as outbreaks of social control—complaints against the young, complaints against mobility, complaints against sexual manners, discipline, compulsory work and training, and so on. She said that those occurred at regular intervals but always mirrored, not a change in the behaviour of young people, but economic dislocation, social mobility, geographical mobility and changes in employment patterns. I am glad to say that her research showed that none of those outbreaks lasted longer than 20 years. Time is nearly up because we have now had 17 of those years.
When I listen to my own pupils, I find a generation of undergraduates who are a good deal more moral in their attitudes than we were at the same stage. They are quarrying out a morality in which the two key virtues are kindness and honesty. One could do a great deal worse.
There are two areas of irrevocable change. One is in the matter of sexual morals. We must accept, whether we like it or dislike it, that contraception has changed sexual morals as irrevocably as nuclear weapons have changed war. If anyone makes a complaint against me for moral relativism, I shall claim to be in good company. St. Augustine, in the city of God, discussed why God had given a dispensation for polygamy to the patriarchs and then withdrawn it. He said it was because God needed to increase the number of chosen people but when God had done so he withdrew the dispensation. If that is not moral relativism, I do not know what is.
On matters of morals, one thing we can do that is really worthwhile is to lead by example. "Don't do as I do, do as I tell you", is the most impossible advice that can be given to the young and I shall not go in for it. The other thing we can do is to attempt to remove obstructions. The immense problem of student poverty has been displaced into the immense problem of student labour. If your Lordships hope to meet any of my pupils, you are likely to do so, over the next month, in Harvey Nichols, Liberty's or Waitrose where they can be found on average for 10 or 12 hours a week; otherwise they cannot afford to do their courses. That is not merely an interruption of their education. No new jobs are created. So, for every job a student gets, somebody else goes onto income support. There is no resultant saving of public money.
I shall not dwell on the problem of 16 and 17 year-olds. Your Lordships know my opinions and they have not changed. However, I believe that it is pushing a great many people off the ladder which leads into regular employment. They disappear from the statistics, which is why the Government do not know about them, and they never get back in. I hope that in the course of the debate someone will dwell on the terrible problem of what is happening to care leavers, among whom 90 per cent. are unemployed and 23 per cent. have no income from any source.
I shall not dwell at length either on the lower rates of income support for under-25s. My noble kinsman Lord Henley knows what I think about that. I know what he thinks about it too. He says that it is because they have low expectations. But that is precisely what this debate is designed to complain about: they do have low expectations and I wish that they did not. That is our problem.
As an example of discrimination against the young, I was going to use the new system of housing benefit for under-25s which confines them to shared accommodation. You could have knocked me down with a feather when I looked at what was in the Budget. Obviously, the Chancellor simply has not taken in what was said because he is now proposing to extend that system to all single people under the age of 60. It was already clear that there was not enough shared accommodation in the whole country to cover all the under-25s. There was a shortfall in Torbay, for example, of about 100 per cent. The department, believe it or not, had absolutely no information on the extent of the shortfall. That is criminally irresponsible legislation. But

279
now this type of system is to be extended to all single people under 60. That will create an impossible situation.
I should like to hear advocates of family values acknowledge that it is better to be single than to burn. If we do not put this matter right, people in their 40s now can go whistle for their pensions. Helmut Kohl recently pointed out that one of the big disadvantages of it taking so long to get people into employment is that the problem of financing pensions gets worse. It is not just a problem of the number of old people; it is a problem of the ratio between old people and people in employment. If we do not get our young people into employment, we are wasting a scarce resource. That is irresponsible budgeting. I beg to move for Papers.
4.11 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, unfortunately I have been ill and I cannot now stand to speak. Therefore, I cannot see the noble Earl who has just spoken. However, I wish to thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for the wide-ranging picture that he has described to us this afternoon. He is always a man to be followed in a debate. I would dread there to be a day when he followed me, which would oblige him to say some nice words about what I had said. He has a brilliant brain and we all listen to him, as we have with great pleasure and interest this afternoon.
I also wish to welcome, as will other noble Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Enniskillen, who is to speak this afternoon. I remember so well his attractive, tall, red-haired father. He was a great friend to everyone here. I am so glad that the noble Earl has chosen this debate in which to make his maiden speech.
We are asked to discuss the practical problems faced by young people. All people are beset by practical problems when they are growing up. The problems one faces and one's ability to cope with them depend to a large degree on one's formative years. It depends on whether one is fortunate enough to have been brought up in a stable family, whether one has, unfortunately, been brought up by parents who are divorced, whether one is brought up by a single parent, whether one is adopted, or whether one is orphaned. Whether or not a young person reaches the age of 16 and beyond as a happy, healthy and well-adjusted person depends on the way that person has been brought up and on his experiences of early childhood. Whether a young person can make a full contribution to society will depend on the end product of his experiences of early childhood.
This afternoon our attention is being drawn to the practical problems faced by young people; that is, those aged from 16 to 22. If one is much older than that, one cannot remember the time when one faced so many practical problems. I refer to the problem of sometimes being coerced into taking drugs and the difficulty of withstanding pressure from those who want to persuade one to take more drink than is necessary. I refer also to the problems of a shortage of money and a shortage of work, which the noble Earl mentioned. Unfortunately, many young people experience a shortage of housing.
280
The way in which a young person has been brought up will determine whether, at the age of 16 and over, he or she is still welcome within the family, or whether they are thrown out to fend for themselves. If they are thrown out to fend for themselves, where they live is of paramount importance, not only as regards the way they live but also as regards the jobs that they will be able to obtain. It will affect their employment prospects as sometimes they may not be able to obtain a job because they do not have a permanent residence.
The Government—and through the Government, other agencies—have had much success recently in providing housing for young people who have no homes of their own. We are all aware that it is primarily in this great city of London that the problems occur. We are all aware of the tragedy of youngsters living in the doorways of shops, or perhaps of clubs, or anywhere that gives them protection from our inclement weather. Those doorways constitute their only home. However, they can make good. They are not happy—how can they be?—but they survive.
I happen to know a little about this matter because I have been involved with the charity, Crisis at Christmas, since its inception. It was started by my late husband and myself many years ago when we discussed it round our dining room table. That was in 1967. We hold an open Christmas for about 1,000 people in an enormous warehouse. We feed them and look after single people who are temporarily—we hope—homeless. They make friends at that event but outside the Christmas period they are lonely people. Loneliness is one of the worst scourges in our society today.
Having said that housing is the most important thing that we can provide for our young people, I believe we must all admit that the basic need in their lives is that of a stable family background, whether that is the young person's own family or a co-opted family. If these young people have a stable family background and a family whom they can approach, that makes all the difference in the world. Housing has been provided, by the Government and others, in a big, smart building in Great Peter Street. I believe that the housing is owned by the Salvation Army, but I have not been able to check that. More housing providing 200 beds was opened at the beginning of this week. Housing is gradually being supplied by the Government and by other charities. We can only encourage that as much as we can from this House.
Those problems do not mean that young people cannot and do not make a full contribution to society. From my knowledge of them I maintain that they make a full contribution to society in most cases. They are young and we are apt to think that young people do no good because unfortunately some get into the press. However, the voluntary work undertaken by young people in hospitals and various institutions is perhaps unknown to most noble Lords present. But if one goes round a psychiatric or paediatric hospital, or any organisation which cares for the elderly and the sick one cannot fail to be impressed by the overwhelming help that young people give. As a disabled person, if I want

281
help perhaps to cross the road or to find my way I would always ask a young person—someone in the age groups that I have mentioned.
After all that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, I feel that I have failed miserably. However, we must give much thought to the help that we can give to those young persons while growing up and afterwards. I hope that all Members in this Chamber today will continue to do their best for those young citizens of our society.
4.22 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, first, perhaps I may say how indebted we are to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for initiating this important debate. Secondly, I wish to reiterate how much we look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Enniskillen. Thirdly, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, for the important point she made about the positive things that are done by so many young people, so often unnoticed. I should declare a personal interest. I am the chair of NACRO's Young Offenders Committee and have been so for some years. I should also like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for mentioning St. Augustine, to whom the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle and I are devoted; we are avid students.
The subject is of the highest importance because, in talking about young people and their place in society, we are talking about our country's future. Our young people are our future. There is no doubt that there is a problem—the alienation of many young people, young men in particular, of which the incidence of youth crime is one of the symptoms.
How will adult society as a whole respond? The basic question is this, I believe. Do we respond with a mentality and, therefore, with policies of exclusion; or do we respond with a mentality and, therefore, with policies of inclusion? Exclusion when faced by distressing behaviour is often the immediate natural reaction. I believe that the mentality of exclusion is implicit in the way that we so readily talk about young people in the third person—we are doing so now—rather than trying to listen to them and let them speak for themselves. It is a symptom of our fear, anxiety and even—I am sorry to say—dislike.
Our adult society is one which, on the whole, does not like young people very much. People who are disliked tend to respond by behaving in dislikable ways. Deep down most of us actually believe the negative things that other people say about us and respond accordingly. Tell a child that he is not capable of anything and he will lose self-respect and ambition. His expectations will be low. Brand a young person as a young criminal and he will behave as one.
There is a symbiosis between exclusion and self-exclusion—for instance, between truancy and exclusion from school; between absence of work and the habit of work; between lack of facilities for young people and lack of interest in anything except hanging around and being a nuisance.
We also need to attend to the powerful effects of the language of exclusion. I refer to such dreadful talk as "animals" and "rat boys" which breaks out from time to
282
time. Such language does no good at all, least of all to those who use it. We have no right to consign our fellow human beings in that way to some kind of dustbin, whether it is a dustbin of the mind or body.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has called our attention to the practical problems which diminish the ability of young people to make their full contribution to society. He has mentioned some. Here are some others and some of the same. So far as concerns young men, there is the loss of unskilled and semi-skilled jobs. There is the collapse of opportunities for the kind of jobs which gave respect in tightly-knit working communities. There is the loss of the habit of work now spread over two generations. There are the special difficulties which ex-offenders have in finding the kinds of secure employment which will help them not to offend again. There has been the chopping and changing of training programmes. There have been the effects on youth work of cuts in local authority funding. We have already heard of the problem of unemployment among graduates and the problem of homelessness among the young.
Few, if any, of those are the result of deliberate policy. But they have all contributed to a culture of exclusion. However, there is one area in which a policy of exclusion has been deliberate. That is in recent policy towards young offenders with its emphasis on punishment and locking people up. That is, I believe, a policy of despair. For that reason—as I said, I speak as chair of NACRO's Young Offenders Committee—we must welcome the Audit Commission's recent report on young people and crime with its emphasis on prevention of crime, work with parents, the place of schools and leisure facilities, housing, training and employment.
What the Audit Commission said is in close accord with NACRO's recently published strategy on crime in England and Wales with its significant title, Prevention, Restoration and Reintegration.
Give young people a stake in society. Listen to them, value them and include them. That is a positive policy instead of the negative habits of exclusion. We need to foster a mentality of inclusion by which young people will be valued, not feared and condemned.
Policies of inclusion will require investment. But do not let us forget the high costs of the existing policies and habits of exclusion. I am thinking not only of the costs of our penal system but of the costs of unemployment and the sheer waste of human talent. The present state of affairs is a waste not only of cash but of people.
In the end there is a profound moral principle at stake. What price do we put on our fellow human beings? Do we recognise our young people, however unattractive we may sometimes find some of them, as our own flesh and blood? That is the basic issue. If we do not, we diminish our own humanity.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Enniskillen: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I thank noble Lords for their legendary courtesy in welcoming me here. I believe I have relevant experience to bring from Kenya, where I work. I ask the indulgence of the House

283
while I bring that experience to your Lordships' attention and in so doing, even though it may seem rather narrow, offer a more global view.
We are all interdependent to an increasingly great degree and Britain's young people do not have unique practical problems. Those in other parts of the world will also be Britain's problems to a greater or lesser extent. But Britain's young people have unique learning opportunities which can be used to greater effect overseas. Under-employment, sadly, may be a fact of life in future, but there are other ways to occupy young people.
The youth of today are tomorrow's leaders. The learning and experiences they undergo in their formative years will shape and prioritise their future decisions. The environment in which they develop will influence the way they feel about themselves, and their consideration for the world around them, thus enabling them to make their full contribution to society. The environment influences the quality of life for young people in Britain, but in other parts of the world dictates their very existence.
By their experiences and through our trade and aid agreements with other countries, tomorrow's leaders will influence how the global village develops and their wise management of the environment will ensure we can support the human population—a very practical problem.
Britain has made a huge contribution globally in the fields of education and political and personal freedoms. But are we doing enough to ensure the wise use of natural resources and thus prevent problems for younger generations? I believe this should be given top priority. Otherwise tomorrow's conflicts will not be over ethnic, religious or political differences; they will be about practical problems of food and water.
Human population growth and ingenuity coupled with technology and focus on economic development today has a capacity to destroy the environment tomorrow, leaving younger generations impoverished. One such threatened resource is the world's wetlands.
Why is this relevant to today's debate? In the short time available I will try to illustrate from my own experience one area where yesterday's deficiencies give us problems today which mainly affect the younger generation and will affect future generations. They themselves have the ability to correct those deficiencies given the necessary support.
In Kenya, one of the most developed countries in Africa, millions of people have to walk great distances to collect water from unreliable sources. Ironically much of our water and that of Ethiopia and Uganda flows through the Nile, and feeds the rich riparian irrigation strips in Sudan and Egypt. Kenya and Ethiopia are both countries where droughts are common.
Yet Kenya also feeds the United Kingdom and Europe. Its flowers and vegetables now join its tea and coffee in terms of quality and export earnings: 75 per cent. of Kenya's flowers grow in the world's largest flower farms around Lake Naivasha, where I live, which is one of the most important fresh water
284
resources. The lake is highly susceptible to pesticide and chemical pollution from the surrounding farms, among other threats.
We have drawn up and are implementing a management plan for the sustainable wise use of the lake's resources, and to promote the existing multisectoral uses without damaging the lake. We initiated action to declare Lake Naivasha Kenya's second Ramsar site in 1995—giving it worldwide recognition as a wetland of international importance.
It has been a long, uphill task against considerable opposition because of the lack of proper long-term planning in the past for some of the economic developments and lack of cross-sectoral environmental legislation in place to regulate them. In spite of all efforts to the contrary therefore, damage has been done. The younger generation is increasingly aware of these issues, but we have not left them an enabling environment in which to implement their knowledge. We have left them with the problems.
Our success to date, which is probably a unique initiative throughout the world, has been achieved by voluntary work and consensus building at community level with support from the World Conservation Union (IUCN), the UK ODA and Leicester University researchers among others. The result has been a pilot scheme of a sufficient quality to attract Kenya government and international support and by example has encouraged other initiatives.
Some 6.5 per cent. of the earth's surface is covered by wetlands and possibly half of that is in the tropics and sub-tropics, where they are most fragile and where land hunger is at its highest. Two-thirds of the fish we eat globally spend at least some of their life-cycle in wetlands. Yet the rate of loss is alarming and the EU is only now formulating wetland and sustainable land use policies. With the notable exception of Canada and Uganda, other countries are far behind.
Governments are too preoccupied with SAPS Paris Club meetings and conflict resolution to be able to give the necessary attention to the problem. Is it not time that we enter the era of the EAP—environment adjustment programmes—with strategies directly to link sustainable wise use of resources to international trade and aid agreements? It is not a matter of choice; it is the only long-term option, and it will provide job opportunities and enable young people to make a real contribution.
Through its membership of the EU, international conventions such as Ramsar and OECD, and its leadership positions within the commissions of IUCN, Britain has the opportunity to take the lead globally to promote knowledge and awareness as a major priority. Enforcement will never be a solution. It requires educated and aware decision-makers, the young people of today, to create the necessary economic incentives. It is fruitless to expect countries such as Kenya to conserve their forests and wetlands unless the real value of those resources is recognised in the global context when the country is at the same time thirsty, without oil reserves, land hungry and needs employment opportunities and foreign trade so urgently. It needs the

285
support and experience of the international community to achieve that hugely difficult balance between socio-economic development and conservation.
Research and job opportunities in understanding and monitoring conservation issues, and drafting management plans, policy and environmental legislation abound throughout the world. We must enable and enthuse our young people to take them or perform voluntary or community work in related fields ensuring that work is given its true worth in the promotion opportunities back home.
International NGOs such as IUCN are uniquely positioned to help by placing young scientists to work with local communities and for governments to channel more donor support through such organisations by way of return of benefits and recognition of the worth of the natural resources consumed.
The European environmental advisory councils have recently issued an excellent statement on environmentally sustainable land use and reform of the CAP. That statement is worthy of the utmost support.
Our young people have the opportunity to lead the world in environmental issues just as previous generations did on parliamentary democracy and civil liberties. I feel that this is one way in which we can turn young people's problems today into tomorrow's opportunities for them to contribute to society, but time is not on our side.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, it is a great honour on behalf of the whole House to be able to thank the noble Earl, Lord Enniskillen, on an outstandingly interesting maiden speech. The noble Earl's breadth of vision does not surprise me. He served in the Irish Guards; he was a civilian pilot in Kenya; and he is, it may surprise the House to hear, an honorary citizen of the state of Texas. His breadth of experience showed in his speech. We all greatly enjoyed it and I am convinced that the message of shared community environmental enterprise in Kenya is one that is very relevant to this debate this afternoon. I hope we shall hear from him often in this House.
Noble Lords Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, may I also thank my noble friend Lord Russell for introducing this debate so eloquently this afternoon. Your Lordships may not know that he came here fresh from his award at lunch time today, as Peer of the Year by the Spectator. It is a curious title, but there we are: Lord Russell is now Peer of the Year, and he follows, of course, in the footsteps of our noble friend Lady Seear, who is so sadly absent from her place today. I understand that Lord Russell, in accepting his award, said that he learnt his craft from Lady Seear, and I can well imagine that.
It is clear that this is an important topic. My colleague, Don Foster MP, the Liberal Democrat education and employment spokesman said three weeks ago, when addressing the National Conference of Youth Clubs, that Britain is currently failing to develop to the full the talents and abilities of its young people.
286
I cannot believe that statement in this House is in any way controversial, even if, between the various Benches, we may disagree on what should be done about it. That failure, to which Mr. Foster referred, is reflected on the margin by a serious breakdown in law and order. Two out of five known offenders are under 21. One out of four is under 18. For those who see the remedy to this in taking ever more draconian punitive measures, it is worth noting that the Audit Commission in its excellent report Misspent Youth, to which the right reverend Prelate referred, points out that three-quarters of the young people who were convicted of the most serious crimes, and were being held in secure custody, had themselves been the victims of physical, sexual or emotional abuse. Seven hundred and fifty thousand 16 to 25 year-olds are today outside work, outside education, outside training and outside benefits. Barely 50 per cent. of young people remain in post-16 education and training. Your Lordships will know that comparable figures in France are 87 per cent. in post-16 education and training and 93 per cent. in Germany.
It is quite clear that we need a new approach in Britain to youth support and youth training. We need to encourage the participation of young people in arts and sport. Could I ask the noble Lord, Lord Henley, when he replies, to tell us whether it is now at last Her Majesty's Government's policy to discourage the selling of school playing fields of which there has been so much, so damagingly over the past 20 years?
We need local strategies to change anti-social attitudes amongst young people in society. Above all, we need to invest in education. This is the challenge to us all, not just to solve the problems that the right reverend Prelate so rightly referred to of alienation, exclusion and, on the margins, lawlessness, but to seize our future in a competitive world. Young people are indeed our future and the challenge to us now is that low skill levels, and even lower aptitude and learning, have become the greatest threat to our future both as a society and as an industrial economy.
The schools of Singapore and Taiwan with their high morale and excellent results already put us to shame. In a business world in which we had a formidable skills lead 100 years ago and in which we still have the inestimable advantage of the English language, the world language of commerce and business, we have now become laggards. At every level from nursery education, the proper foundation for a learning society, to reducing class sizes, improving facilities and raising standards in secondary schools, to universities, to life-long learning, we are starving our future.
I was frankly amazed in the Budget debate of recent days that a government, and for that matter an official opposition, facing the last election before the new millennium, should see the primary question for the electorate as one of tax cuts, rather than one of real investment in this most fundamental pipeline to the future.
The other aspect of education, which I would like to address briefly, is the question of citizenship education. The Audit Commission in the report which I and the right reverend Prelate have mentioned, said that we need

287
a strategy based on citizenship in schools and in the community. My own party proposes that there should be citizen service to give young people one or two years community service for environmental projects. I mention in that context the admirable work done by Groundwork around the country, bringing young people into environmental projects in rundown urban areas, in housing, in renovation, in crime prevention and social services. That would be wise indeed.
We are also committed to making citizenship education a mandatory part of the school curriculum. I think we are the only party to say this, although I shall be interested to hear from the Labour Front Bench. I should like to say a few concluding words on that.
I think it is too early to have a fully objective view of the Thatcher years and of that extraordinary experiment, about which we are all still shell-shocked and trying to assess what it meant for this country and our society. I am quite clear that the remark that there is no such thing as society can now be seen as wholly disastrous. It implies a one-dimensional view of human nature in which people are producers and consumers, where they are economic units, not a society where we are part one of another, not social beings, not citizens, but taking the market which is, of course, an efficient way of securing economic progress, but it is not a metaphor for life as a whole. It will not do to say that there is no such thing as society.
I have had an interesting experience myself in the past three years in establishing in Prague a secondary school, known as the English College in Prague, which aims to give the best of British education to young Czech people. The most interesting thing is, following the end of the Communist regime in the Czech Republic, how many of the Czech schools, how many of the gymnasiums and other secondary schools, are now looking round to try to find some social ethic on which to base their teaching. This was not a problem in the old days; they had Marxism and Leninism. Now, all they are offered from Britain and from the West is the market. The market may be necessary, but it is not sufficient. People need to have an idea of how to live in society one with another.
I am also involved as a trustee with a body called the Citizenship Foundation. After the horrors of recent months and years the whole subject of citizenship education is much on people's minds, including issues of legal education, political education and moral education. The Citizenship Foundation is doing useful work. Some of your Lordships may know of the Motorola sponsored youth parliament, of the mock trials of the young person's passport, of good role playing exercises in schools where people can play out some of the decisions that are made by local councils, and of teaching, through moral dilemmas, children even in primary schools. As we know, most moral development is formed—the Jesuits were right—by the age of six or seven. The early teaching through moral dilemmas and role playing cannot come too early to give children some kind of insight into life with their fellows.
288
There is also the work of the Hansard Society in political education, not on a partisan basis. We need that very much. Those who look to the next election expect not more than two out of five first-time voters to go to the polls to vote. That is tragic because it is their future for which they will be voting.
I refer also to the work of the Bridge Project, with which some noble Lords may be familiar. It brings together university students—from Oxford, Cambridge, Nottingham and now Leicester—to work with excluded, disadvantaged and isolated young people in a practical way, to try to deal with the problem of exclusion mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham.
Inclusion is one key. But the other key is the question of trust. In the end, that is the object of citizenship, education and community involvement. People should learn to be trustful of each other. Mr. Fukuyama in his recent book spoke about trust as the fundamental glue of both civil society and competitive success. That is what I believe we have to create in our schools, communities and society as a whole.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Enniskillen, on a splendid and imaginative maiden speech. I spent three of the most formative years of my life in what was then Tanganyika. I hope that his idea of encouraging young people to take an interest in the problems of Africa can be followed.
I welcome the practical tone of the Motion. I also endorse the emphasis put on the importance of education by the noble Lord, Lord Holme. I believe that the most crucial element in enabling young people to make a full contribution to society is that they should be able to acquire the right—I underline the word "right"—qualifications and skills which are so essential in today's complex and competitive world.
The general tone of the debate has been rather gloomy, offering a series of problems and even disasters. I accept that there are many problems. But, although I have often in the past bemoaned the problems, I feel that the situation at present is more hopeful than I have known it for many decades. It was unfortunate that in the 1960s raising the school-leaving age to 16 and the introduction of comprehensive education were paralleled—not caused—by a decline in apprenticeship and the demise of the technical colleges. The result was that weakened vocational and technical qualifications with unsatisfactory structures failed to attract many of the young. The apprenticeship system had collapsed and there was nothing to take its place.
What happened—here lie the roots of today's problems—was that many, indeed the majority, who were not drawn to the academic courses which were present in large numbers at the expanding universities, left school, without any qualifications at all, to take unskilled jobs. Those are the people who often resort to crime and are the first casualties of any unemployment problem. I am hopeful, because attempts have been made over the past three to five years to remedy the

289
situation. For the first time we are beginning to concentrate on getting adequate vocational and technical qualifications. NVQs and GNVQs are being developed to provide such a qualification, which, it is to be hoped—I say this optimistically—will in time bear comparison with A-level. Much remains to be done. The Minister knows—I have told him on many occasions and bored him to tears with it—that the GNVQ and NVQ qualifications have to be made demanding. Only in that way will they be held in as high regard as those vocational courses that exist in France and Germany. That must happen. A start has been made and things are better than in the past.
I believe, although many in the House will not share my view, that breaking the rigidity of the educational structure has made it possible for schools to give more value to courses other than academic ones. That can occur because of the greater independence of grant-maintained schools and of course the creation of city technology colleges. I believe that in time that will enable some of the grant-maintained schools or city technology colleges to create centres of excellence for vocational and technical studies, again producing a situation exactly parallel with the one that exists over the whole of western Europe. Such centres of vocational excellence exist in large numbers in France and Germany and provide an alternative to the Abitur and Baccalauréat, the equivalents of A-level. That cannot but help school leavers obtain adequate qualifications suitable to their interests and abilities. It will enable them to get jobs and prevent them drifting into destitution and crime.
I speak as governor of two independent schools and one maintained comprehensive school. The much maligned league tables have caused schools—certainly those that I know, both independent and maintained—to pay more attention to creating higher academic standards, particularly in the crucial areas of numeracy and reading. I agree that the system could be refined. We would want to know the standard of the pupils when they entered the schools. But again progress has been made and things are better than they were—and I have governed schools for a long period.
I conclude anecdotally. I think it shows something of the tenor of what I am trying to say. I was brought up in the north as a member of a poor family. The tradition in which I was brought up was one in which parents made enormous sacrifices so that children could obtain qualifications. My grandmother, a widow from the 1914-18 war, worked as a shop assistant in the Co-operative. Yet with an inadequate grant—there were hardly any grants and when there were they were inadequate—she paid for my uncle to go to a teacher training college. Others accepted the inevitable low wages of their children while they were in an apprenticeship. We must encourage that. My noble friend Lady Macleod emphasised the importance of the tradition of a family helping and supporting its children to obtain qualifications to enable them to avoid unemployment. We must all support that. I spent five years at Cambridge. My family were poor but they bought my clothes, fed me and gave everything. That tradition, which existed at a time when there was very
290
little state support, should be encouraged. I say again that there is a lot to do. But a start has been made. The situation is not gloomy; we might even imitate our Continental neighbours.
Before I sit down perhaps I may say a word in favour of the great St. Augustine. He was accused of moral relativism but he also said,
"Would that the world was celibate and this sorry business could come to an end".
That is the opposite of moral relativism.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Enniskillen, on his excellent maiden speech and thank him for reminding me that what we are discussing tonight are probably the problems of young people in the first world.
My noble friend's debate is as relevant as ever, as the conditions for young people to enter adult society become more difficult, and indeed when more barriers are being erected than ever before. I propose to look at why some of those barriers are erected and then make suggestions as to how we, as a society, might dismantle them.
We are focusing on that period in life when the inevitably inexperienced young person makes the transition from school to work or related training. For some it is more fundamental—securing a home; securing an income; securing health and safety. Those who are currently being looked after by a local authority may well feel that they are being cast adrift. "Looked after" is the euphemism in the Children (Scotland) Act for being brought up in care.
I recall recently tabling amendments calling for an extension of a local authority's duty of care of young people up from 17 to 21, 23 and even 25. I did that in the context that the average age of leaving home is 22. I persist in the view that being looked after by the local authority is in no way an acceleration to independent living, despite the sub-cultural thought of some children in care.
To return to the mainstream of the debate, there is no doubt that youth employment policy and practice must be looked at. The importance of entry to work cannot be stressed too much. It is the symbol of integration into adulthood and into the community. It is the means of accessing the fulfilment of one's purpose, to make one's contribution to society. Failure to achieve that is expressed in frustration, boredom, lack of direction and wasted potential—as has been mentioned—and can spill over into self-defeating deviance, vandalism, criminality, addiction and even, in some dreadful cases, suicide.
For young men it is now harder to enter employment since it was established that young women are more employable. That imbalance needs attention, especially as young men who fail to access the modern form of the hunter-gatherer role will end up very displaced. I turn to the economic aspects of that situation and, initially, touch on what I suppose must be called the redistribution of unemployment. I ask the unwanted

291
question: who is more capable of withstanding unemployment? I answer it thus: young people are among the least capable.
I want to consider reshaping the workforce by measures such as a shorter working week, job sharing, moves from employment to self-employment and earlier retirement. Also needing consideration is the effect of raising and lowering wages as a means of employment expansion. Those suggestions all relate to a static labour market. Clearly economic expansion and investment are better but often elusive measures for expanding the workforce. I fully accept that talk of an earlier retirement policy will cause the usual Treasury cynicism that young people are cheaper to maintain in unemployment than older people. But, while I accept the initial arithmetic, I insist that it is far more damaging not to give young people a start in employment. Policies aimed at compulsory private or, more to the point, fully funded pensions will be helpful, albeit requiring a substantial period of time to elapse before they come into effect.
I should like to run with the hypothesis that there is a frostier reception for young people when joining the workforce today. They are perceived as a greater threat to existing jobs than ever before. That is a product of job insecurity and of the changing nature of work. As has been mentioned, there are far fewer jobs now for a laddie—a wee boy—to do.
I move on to education policy. Initially, I note that schools still focus on qualifications rather than skill acquisition and that professional cynicism allows some children to be written off due to family background. I am keen that all young people should be taught economics, particularly those aspects which explain employment practices and the nature of work and business. Too many young people have not grasped that unless they focus on a specific job, they will be left unemployed. Youngsters who say that they will do any job will be employed to do no job. An education system that produces unfocused jobseekers is clearly unhelpful.
Similarly, the practice of teaching the wrong metric system is unhelpful. Teaching children to use centimetres is nonsense when the building industry uses metres and millimetres. The distortion caused by drug pushers, some media influences and parental disinterest is even less helpful. Parental disinterest needs examining. I suggest that today's parents have less confidence as parents than ever before. Faced by a bewildering range of differing lifestyles and attitudes, today's parents are faced with choices and potentially more confusion than their forebears ever had in a more structured society. A clear view of how children should be brought up seems to be harder to develop and maintain today. Parents and potential parents therefore need to give that matter more thought and, in some cases, actually start to think about it.
I want now to focus on the neglected area of social and employment policy; that is, that of land settlement. It is part of what I call "remote areas" policy. Reversing the trend of education and emigration from our more remote areas could be achieved by a more vigorous approach to enabling young people to stay or, indeed,
292
move to the more remote areas and to find a means of making a living and a life in the abundant space of our more remote areas. Attention to underused land assets and absentee landlords would reveal that there is a potential for the redistribution of land and that that has already been legislated for. Attention to the position of absentee crofters and smallholders, for example, and a better resourced crofting new entrant scheme could have considerable benefits in that regard.
I conclude with the plea that the importance of a successful transition from school to work be recognised as vital and that government policies be focused around that criteria.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Sempill: My Lords, I too extend my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Enniskillen, and welcome to your Lordships' House another valuable spokesman on behalf of Africa. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this issue as I believe the young are the most important asset that we have and I do not believe that we are managing them very well.
Today's young are by no means the most problematical that we have had and I suspect that my generation may even have been worse. In contributing to the noble Earl's debate, I felt it worthwhile to provide an overview of today's youth and I commence with a quote:
"It was the absence of anxiety and the freedom to grow up largely without interference from adults which demarcates previous generations from this one … the children hear an adult burden of worry and gloom".
That quote has been extracted from an extensive piece of research commissioned by an advertising agency, which, not surprisingly, is very interested in the attitudes and aspirations of today's youth. The research was conducted in six cities among respondents aged 14 to 25 and has been supplemented with quantitative data from various other sources. It was completed in March of this year.
The key observations are that British youth are characterised by an aggressive consumer confidence, a reasonable degree of control over their social lives and a growing consumption of media. They are worried by job insecurity, AIDS, drugs and violence, which means that we are all singing from the same hymn sheet. These concerns are underlined by a perception that major institutions are now letting them down. This is mainly applicable to schools and, unfortunately, to the police.
Education featured very highly in the research, and I was pleasantly surprised to read that in a list of 10 key lifestyle statements the second in order of importance was:
"It's important to work hard at school".
That shows a clear recognition of the value they place on education, an area in which government have a clear responsibility and an area where the young are at the most crucial stage of their development. But the continual chopping and changing of educational policy has created a feeling among our youth that they are nothing other than "guinea pigs". The current dilemma between school teachers and difficult pupils is a good

293
example of how we have failed them through parental incompetence and state impotence. Their uncertainty manifests itself in a blasé approach to their future, which is being exacerbated by the speed with which things continue to change.
Technology, however, holds them in no fear and I was surprised to read that nearly 60 per cent. of their homes have a PC and that over 80 per cent. of the respondents use computers on a regular basis. The majority of them have become aware of the Internet and recognise the benefits of having global technology or information on tap. The impact of this technology is having a profound effect on education, specifically now that teachers are reshaping the way lessons are presented.
The biggest change noted in the research—a similar study was conducted in 1994—is the emergence of the empowered female. These young women, one of whom is my daughter, are active consumers and display a maturity way beyond their years. They are sexually aware and not afraid to start relationships. They are avid readers of magazines especially those aimed at older women, from which they are picking up a wide range of information, some of it sexually explicit. Among this group, unfortunately, there has been a notable increase in young female gang violence, which is disturbing. This empowerment has, not surprisingly, created a male reaction, which is epitomised by, in the words of the research,
"a laddish world of football, pubs and birds".
That is not dissimilar to what I went through.
No valid observation can be made of the young without reference to the drug scene and the impact it has had, and will continue to have, on their lives. So let us examine the drugs phenomenon a little closer. According to the Drug Dependency Unit, some 2.7 million Ecstasy tablets, with a street value of £40.5 million, are sold in the UK every weekend. The survey shows that 17 year-olds are averaging more than £100 per month to satisfy this habit. That does not include the £40 they spend on alcohol. But before we condemn them to a life in prison, let us just understand what they value in this rather extraordinary pill. It kills their inhibitions and brings them into a world of love and togetherness! Is that good or bad, or is it not just what we were trying to do, albeit through different stimulants? However, across the board, some of the fun associated with Ecstasy usage has gone. It is by no means harmless, as the death of Leah Betts clearly evidenced in the research.
The power of this drug is not just the effect on the individual but the effect on an entire generation. It has spawned an entire culture of music and dance, and with that a re-evaluation of youth values. It has been responsible for the development of the rave scene, which in turn created a separate form of street communication, leading to a dramatic increase in pirate media. Their buying power has enabled them to escape from the home environment and, coupled with the chronic lack of facilities, has seen the urban youth invade shopping malls and fast-food outlets, where they congregate and spend their money. Their country
294
cousins are not so fortunate and boredom often becomes the catalyst for experimentation with drugs and other substances. This freedom of movement is helped by a degree of financial independence. More than 85 per cent. of them have either a bank or a building society account and approximately 20 per cent. receive between £100 and £200 pocket money per annum.
I hope that I have given your Lordships some insight into our youth, although it is important to note that this is no homogeneous group. Social divides are clearly evident and the hedonistic attitudes of some should not be confused by the overt anarchism of others. Why are our children so unsettled? They are, after all, exceptionally privileged in comparison to many of their counterparts overseas. The difference, I believe, is in how we are portraying the future. A recent study has examined the attitudes of the youth in India. They are extremely confident of tomorrow. They are led to believe that their contribution will not only benefit India but that they, in turn, will experience a lifestyle of superior quality. We may all hold differing views regarding our future, but I ask: is it as bad as the media make out? Where is the dream; where are we going? Young people do not aspire to write the agenda. They expect us to do this.
What do we offer? ERM, BSE, BBC and government by TV! It does not quite have that "bliss was it to be alive that dawn" feeling. As the survey shows, they have little confidence in the political system, let alone the politicians. Therefore I have to conclude that our youth are frustrated and lacking in direction. They are the beneficiaries of a technological revolution, which is having a profound effect on our society. They are maturing at an alarming rate and need to be given a stronger sense of citizenship. It is in our long-term interest to provide them with the necessary facilities to allow them to develop and thereby contribute to a better tomorrow.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Enniskillen, on an outstanding maiden speech. The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, said a moment ago that young people have little confidence in the political system. Indeed, we worry from time to time that young people do not respond to many of the political issues that concern us. But if there is one thing that young people are enthused by, it is the problems of the environment and how to deal with them. I welcome the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Enniskillen, and his emphasis on the production of environmentally sustainable policies which he has seen developed in Kenya.
I wish to develop the theme of the problems of juvenile crime, which were touched on by my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham. I, too, am indebted to the recently published report by the Audit Commission entitled Misspent Youth. My noble friend Lord Holme reminded the House that, according to Home Office statistics, two out of every five known offenders in 1994 were under the age of 21 and a quarter of them were under 18.

295
The estimate made in that report means that a staggering 7 million crimes against individuals—such as theft, burglary, assault and theft against retailers and manufacturers—were committed during that year. The Audit Commission estimated that the cost of the criminal justice system in processing and dealing with young offenders, including all public service areas, amounted to £1 billion per year.
We have to ask ourselves: what value do we get for that money? The first startling figure is that only a small proportion of those 7 million offences are ever reported and recorded by the police, of which just 3 per cent. lead to arrest and action. Of that 3 per cent. 1.8 per cent. of the offenders are cautioned and 1.3 per cent. are charged or summonsed. So, in effect, of the order of 97 offenders out of 100 are not caught or dealt with for the crimes they commit.
Youth offending is not going to be dealt with by progressively harsher penalties calling for larger and more numerous penal institutions, boot camps, psuedo-militaristic training and so on. That is not the way to prevent crime because, as I have said, 97 out of 100 young people who offend are never caught. So the emphasis must move from deterrence through these penal measures to a strategy for tackling youth crime as a whole. We have heard from Mr. Blair about his wishing to be tough on the causes of crime. That is an excellent sound bite, but it solves nothing on its own. It raises two further questions: what are the causes of youth crime and, having identified those causes, how do we prevent offending behaviour in the first place?
In a recently published Joseph Rowntree report Understanding and Preventing Youth Crime, these risk factors as the child grows up through the various stages of its life were identified; these are the formative years referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod. They were identified as, first, inadequate parenting. Nobody is trained to be a parent and when that bundle arrives we look at it with surprise and joy and wonder what to do next. I recall Steve Martin in the film "Parenthood" who did precisely that. He looked at the little bundle and said, "Just look at her—and we haven't harmed her yet".
Erratic or harsh parental discipline shading into child abuse is not the answer. Those who advocate spanking and caning really do not have an answer to the problems of dealing with young children. Conflict between parents, parental rejection of the child, low parental involvement with the child—these are the matters of concern. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham talked about exclusion. These young children are excluded from love. I, unfortunately, and much more than most of your Lordships, have had to deal with pathological killers—far too many of them. The common feature of people who do not feel pain themselves and who do not realise that they are inflicting it on others is that they have never learnt to love because affection was never shown to them when they were young.
The learning of parental skills must start in the schools and continue with professional help, which will help young parents to develop the self-awareness and
296
self-confidence to deal with children. Family centres in areas of high risk can bring together the social services, the health services and the voluntary organisations such as the organisation Homestart which aims to befriend young families at risk through volunteer networks of experienced parents. We all have experiences as parents—I hope good ones—which we can pass on to other young parents who do not know quite how to react.
As the child grows up the next problem is aggressive and hyperactive behaviour in early childhood. What is the answer to that? It is investment in nursery schools so that the children who have been brought up in a home lacking love can at least learn to socialise, to get to know other children and to have imposed on them by the carers at nursery school standards of behaviour, or even to have identified for themselves medical problems so that they can be helped.
Again, as the child progresses we come to the school years, with the problems of truancy and exclusion, which were highlighted recently in the case of Philip Lawrence with which I had some connection. It was tragic indeed to see what can happen when young people truant and are excluded from school. The research paper by Graham and Bowling, Young People and Crime, published in 1995, found that 42 per cent. of offenders of school age who are sentenced in the youth court have been excluded from school and 23 per cent. truant significantly. Further, excluding children from school causes them to commit 50 per cent. more offences in the year following exclusion. So excluding children from school is not the answer. That is not the way to go because that merely pushes the problem from within the disciplines that can be enforced on the children in the school, into the wider community. It is a challenge to parents, schools, headmasters and school welfare officers that these problems of truanting and exclusion should be dealt with.
The next matter which the report highlighted was peer group pressure to offend. They are young people who used to get into "bad company", as they used to say, who are associating with others and imitate what they do. How is that to be dealt with? It is to be dealt with by resources for youth clubs; giving people access to sports facilities and to outdoor activities; encouraging young people to mix with others in constructive and challenging activities; finding new role models to promote a positive self-image for themselves at the youth stage. We must get away from the gangs hanging around with nothing to do and with boredom causing them to commit crime.
A further factor was unstable living conditions particularly for young people leaving care. My noble friend Lord Russell referred to the fact that of the children who have been in care, 90 per cent. are unemployed and 23 per cent. have no income at all. They live in terrible conditions which are conducive to crime. We must tackle that. It is no use later coming along, taking them to a boot camp and marching them up and down in some militaristic way, as I have previously said, believing that that will solve their

297
problems. It is a question of dealing with the way they live in their homes; giving them support for the way in which they live their lives.
It would take too long for me to deal with training and employment. As I have already said, boredom and having nothing to do are the sort of things which are conducive to young people offending. Finally, there is drug and alcohol abuse, which are so much behind all the crime with which I come into contact. It is a wide subject and I do not have the time to deal with it all. The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, developed that theme. Apart from the need to fashion a dream for young people, his point was that we should try to stimulate young people to have interests which mean that they do not get their stimulation from drugs or alcohol but from positive activities.
I have tried to describe the cycle of deprivation at each stage of the development of a child. Once that cycle has begun, it is difficult to break it. When he replies, I hope that the Minister will be able to say that the Government will shift their emphasis from populist draconian penal policies that are bound to fail to a more imaginative approach of preventing crime at its roots.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may speak in the gap. I do so with some trepidation because I have a fundamental concern about speaking of young people as a group. I wonder what we would say if the noble Earl had introduced a debate on the practical problems facing 56 year-olds such as myself. I make that as a serious point because I was concerned that following the International Youth Year the most commonly repeated comment among young people was, "Please will people stop describing us all as though we are the same?". Thousands of young people are involved in the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme, community activities, Young Farmers Clubs, the Scouts and drama societies. The list is endless. It is important to have on the record the fact that so many young people undertake such activities.
I join the congratulations that have been paid to the noble Earl, Lord Enniskillen, on his distinguished maiden speech. His contribution will strike a chord with many young people who recognise the interdependence of the world in which they are growing up. One of the noble Earl's points, which I hope will be taken up, was the need to extend young people's opportunities to participate in international activities.
I seek to speak about one particular group of young people within the general category. I refer to those young people who are very young parents themselves. Many noble Lords have referred to the circumstances of, and the problems facing, young people. It is fashionable in some political circles to treat the issue of providing adequate incomes, adequate housing, a safe and secure environment, and education and training opportunities as somehow rewarding feckless behaviour. If we take that view, the feckless behaviour is ours.
In most cases, young people who become parents face intolerable pressures which I, for one, know that I could not have overcome at the age of 16, 17 or 18. On the
298
other hand, there is dramatic evidence to show that where we provide resources to help such young parents with, for example, parental support projects, support through family centres and, particularly, with nursery and primary education, it is possible to intervene and to break a tragic cycle that so often is one of deprivation.
In order to do that, we must recognise the importance of human resources and time. A child needs a sufficient number of teachers to ensure that he can speak and be listened to. With a committed investment in human time from professionals, young parents can break that cycle of deprivation and increase not only their own opportunities, but those of their children. I hope that the Minister will recognise the importance of that work.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, it is an unexpected and, these days, an unusual pleasure for me to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton. More usually I speak immediately before her. However, since I have such an unexpected and unusual opportunity, perhaps I may say how much I agree with her opening comments. I am sure that that is true of all noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Russell who tabled this Motion. We are wrong if we suggest that all young people are the same. Of course they are not. Young people are as different individually as people of any age. They all have different needs and different expectations. However, perhaps they have a range of problems and practical difficulties in common, just as—dare I suggest it?—do most 56 year-olds or rising 53 year-olds. The purpose of today's debate is to draw attention to. and to consider, those common problems and difficulties.
I may just have declared one personal interest, but before going any further perhaps I should declare both a political interest and a personal interest. I am still the leader of a London borough council which is a unitary authority and therefore has responsibility for education, including the youth service, for housing, for social services and leisure services—in fact, for the whole range of local authority services which impact upon young people.
My other interest—a very much more personal one—is that I have two sons who are currently in post-school education. My older son has just started his first term at university as a mature student at the ripe old age of 22. Having been out at work for three years, free of parental support, he thought—my wife and I took a slightly different view because he was living at home with us—he has now discovered somewhat to his surprise (but not to ours) that his grant as a mature student does not enable him to live in the style to which he has become accustomed. That is a very real personal interest.
We have had a brief but interesting and useful debate on a subject which is of vital importance to the country. As many of your Lordships have said, it is of vital importance to the future of our society. There have been many useful contributions. I do not have time to single out many, but I should like to join all noble Lords in paying tribute to the interesting and excellent maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Enniskillen. We all

299
listened to it with great interest and it brought a wider dimension to our debate than we may have expected at the start of the debate.
I listened with particular interest to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham and found myself agreeing with everything that he said, particularly with the emphasis that he put on "inclusion" as distinct from "exclusion". So often we approach young people as the problem and immediately start to exclude them. When we say, "They are the problem", we use what is essentially an exclusive term. It is not young people who are the problem; it is young people who have the problem. By talking with them and most particularly by listening to them, we can attempt to recognise and to deal with the problem in an inclusive way. I agree wholly with the right reverend Prelate.
Inevitably, many of my noble friends have already made the points that I had intended to raise. They have rightly stressed why the Liberal Democrats have chosen this subject for one of our debates. It is because of the importance that our party gives to the whole issue of life-long learning and particularly to the challenges now facing young people. My noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham raised a number of useful points, some of which I had intended to cover but no longer need to. He asked the Minister a question—as a local authority leader I have particular interest in the answer—about what the Government intend to do to discourage the sale of playing fields. Perhaps I may suggest an answer to the Minister—I suspect that I shall not hear this one in a few minutes' time. If the Government were to relax significantly the capital controls on local authorities, that alone would have a significant effect on the sale of playing fields because very few, if any, schools or local authorities want to sell their playing fields. However, they have to do so to raise the capital receipts that are necessary for the basic maintenance of their schools. I am in danger of getting onto a hobby horse.
Inevitably, in talking to my sons and thinking about this debate I have to make some comparisons between the situation when I left school in 1961 and the situation today. In 1961 we felt that we were under great pressure but life was a good deal simpler. Only 5 per cent. of us went on to university. Most did not, and did not expect to. Whether or not that is a benefit is a matter of interpretation. I compare my situation then with that of my sons today. Not only did I go straight to work on leaving school but, as far as I recall, everyone I knew went straight into jobs. Most of us had jobs from which to choose. Both of my sons are educated to A-level standard and have gone on to university. They have many friends who are similarly qualified and who before and after university have had great difficulty in finding jobs. Perhaps the biggest difference between my generation and my sons' is that in the 'sixties we had hope for the future. If asked then probably most of us would have said that we did not expect to die in our beds but rather in a nuclear holocaust. That is one change for the better. I suspect that nowadays young people would not say that. Having said that, we had hope for the future. Although there are many exceptions, I am not sure that, as a generation, young people today
300
have the same hope that we had 30 years ago. Perhaps that is not surprising. We have heard that today many more people are in further and higher education, but still only 50 per cent. of young people are undergoing further and higher education compared with 87 per cent. in France and 93 per cent. in Germany.
We know only too well about the problem of student poverty and the general underfunding of that sector. I have spoken briefly about jobs. It is a fact that 600,000 under 25 year-olds are without work. Although I have not checked the figures, I suspect that in 1961 the total number of unemployed of all ages was in the region of 600,000. Now we are simply talking of those who are under 25. Last year alone, 156,000 16 to 19 year-olds experienced homelessness. That is shocking at any age, but for young people of that age it is much worse.
My noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham spoke about citizenship, on which I do not need to dwell. However, I should like to make a comparison between today and 30 years ago. In the 'sixties many young people belonged to single issue groups. The youth movements of all the political parties were strong and vibrant. Indeed, some parties at that time, including my own, thought that they were too vibrant! Those groups were strong, vibrant and had a real impact and influence. I remember campaigning hard for votes at 18. I should like to know why young people today are not campaigning hard to have the age at which people can stand as candidates lowered to 18. I am sure that 30 years ago that would have happened. That remains my party's policy.
In the 1992 General Election over 20 per cent. of 18 to 25 year-olds were not even registered to vote. Two and a half million of them do not even bother to vote. That is not their fault or their problem; it is our fault and our problem. I believe that it is the fault of the political system and the political parties that there has not been a sufficient engagement with young people such that they feel it is worth while to become involved and register, let alone bother to vote. Of course, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham is right when he says that we need to listen to young people and not just talk at them. We need to listen to them and act upon what they say. There is no point in listening to them unless they know they have been heard.
I have mentioned that I am a local authority leader. In that sector I see some of the practical problems only too well. I do not wish to upset the Minister, at least not on this occasion, but in general there has been considerable pressure on local authority budgets. An hour or so ago we learned that the pressure may be even greater in the coming year. In an effort to protect the school budgets and give priority to them, I suspect that most LEAs, including my own (I am sad to say), have had to cut the youth service budget. The effect of year-on-year cuts in those budgets has been very serious. Such cuts are seldom cataclysmic. It does not happen as a big crunch or crisis; it happens over a period of time. This has happened over a period of time. The effect on the youth service—I do not refer solely to the public sector youth service but also to the extremely

301
important part played by the voluntary sector in co-ordination with the public sector—has been very serious.
As a local authority leader, I take the matter a little further. It is sometimes said—I have heard it in my own authority—that youth is the responsibility of the youth service. That is a very limited view. Youth is the responsibility of all of us. All local authority departments provide very important services for and should be working closely with young people. That is demonstrably true of social service provision, but sadly it is not entirely true of housing and leisure services. Many of the users of leisure services are young people. Many local authorities do not have a properly co-ordinated youth strategy. Local authorities are particularly well placed to engage with young people in real dialogue and debate about their needs and aspirations to which the right reverend Prelate has referred.
I turn briefly to youth training, which is another important area. I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on that, in particular about the effects of the Budget. Immediately prior to yesterday's Budget, TECs feared that there would be a 20 per cent. cut in the youth training budget. I have not yet been able to unpack the Budget details sufficiently to know whether or not that is true. Perhaps the Minister will be able to clarify the position. But if it is true, or even partially true, it will have a very serious impact on 18 to 21 year-olds. A 20 per cent. cut would mean the loss of 50,000 places. In my own TEC area it would mean a loss of 1,000 places. In my own borough alone there would be a loss of 200 places for the 18 to 21 year-olds. Yet proper and good quality training is the key to proper and full employment in the future, and it is crucially important.
It is Liberal Democrat policy to give priority to lifelong learning. That is the reason why we have chosen this subject for debate today. It is our priority to invest in the future. We regard investment in the future as infinitely more important than tax cuts for the next four months, as one of my noble friends said earlier. We have a whole range of measures, which I do not have time to describe, to attempt to deal with that situation and demonstrate where we would place that funding for lifelong learning. Our first priority is to open up new opportunities for people to gain skills and make the most of their lives and to create a nation of lifetime learners.
As I have mentioned in other debates in your Lordships' House, we also have proposals to tackle the ever-growing and real problem of student poverty. Most of all, we need to recognise that our young people are society's future. I am sure that all of us believe that young people are valuable assets, but it is not simply enough to say that. Our actions must demonstrate that they are valued. It is for that reason that Liberal Democrats give such high priority to lifelong learning.
5.49 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, first, I should like to thank the noble Earl for introducing this very important and, as it has turned out, varied debate. The subject is of great importance to our country's future. It also gave
302
us the opportunity to hear the noble Earl, Lord Enniskillen, give his maiden speech, which was fascinating. It was interesting to have a wider view—a view from another continent. I was particularly pleased to hear him talk about the environment. I believe that young people find the environment a stimulating subject, and the more we can encourage that the better.
My own list of problems which create difficulties for society today are: poverty; unemployment; inadequate education and training; poor parenting; and the greedy and unfair society that it seems we have become. All those lead to young people feeling alienated from society. That, to me, is dangerous.
Poverty makes it very difficult for parents to cope, and it is growing fast in what we are told by the Chancellor is a prosperous and successful society. Children living in households with less than half the national income rose from 16 per cent. to 33 per cent. between 1981 and 1992. Inequality of income is greater in the UK than in any other north European country. There are two groups I want to mention specifically: lone parents and young people leaving care.
The percentage of children brought up in one-parent families rose from 11 per cent. to 19 per cent. between 1981 and 1992. That is 4.2 million children. That is frightening. Last year they had their benefit cut. I wrote as chairman of the all-party Children Group to Mr. Peter Lilley to beg him that further cuts forecast would not take place in the Budget. We did ask him to see us but he was not able to do that. Yesterday he pushed through a drastic reduction in benefit payments for single mothers by abolishing the lone-parent premium for all new claimants. The 1 million lone parents on income support will continue to receive the £5.20 a week, but single parents who go onto income support from next year will not be eligible.
A Channel 4 programme on poverty a few weeks ago showed a good, caring, single mother trying to bring up a child on £80 a week. Imagine the stress and the struggle in trying to keep up appearances for the child's sake at school, buying expensive little packets of orange juice so the other children would not think that he was different.
Some people think that pushing more money toward two-parent families in order to boost marriage is sensible and would influence people towards marriage and two-parent households. Perhaps it will, but I am afraid that I consider it doubtful. Surely it is children of whom we should be thinking and the effect of poverty on them, on their lives. They are the next generation. Deprivation is recognised as a cause of crime.
Now, children leaving care, particularly the 16 to 18 year-olds are others about whom we should be very anxious. During the debate on the Children Bill in 1989, Lady Faithful and many of us tried very hard to improve the possibilities for them and put some responsibility for them on local authorities. We did not get what we wanted. The powers of the authorities are discretionary, and of course a great many of them have not got the money.

303
Those young people represent only 1 per cent. of their age group, yet they are massively over-represented among those who are disadvantaged. More than 75 per cent. have no academic qualifications; between 50 per cent. and 80 per cent. are unemployed; 23 per cent. of adult prisoners and 38 per cent. of young prisoners have been in care; one in seven young women leaving care is pregnant or already a mother; 30 per cent. of young single homeless have been in care; one in 10 16 to 17 year-old claimants for DSS severe hardship payments has been in care. There are some care leavers who are successful, but a caring society should not feel complacent about what is happening now. The vast majority are in care through no fault of their own. Local authorities just do not have the necessary resources to take on the duties that they could exercise. The plight of those young people is very serious.
The Labour Party has a number of plans for getting young people into training and employment, but I do not have time to go into those. Poor parenting is a cause of inadequate and possibly delinquent children. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, talked about that and I echo everything he said. The Labour Party has produced an excellent document called Parenting. I recommend that to people's attention. Research has shown that parental supervision is one of the most important factors in determining juvenile delinquency. Poor parental supervision and harsh and erratic discipline were among the most important factors contributing to youth crime.
We in this country give very little attention to helping people acquire the skills of a competent parent. Our media give more attention to the care of car and pets than to the care of children. Newspapers and magazines bombard us with information about our personal relationships and sex lives, but about parenting and children, the product of those relationships, there is usually silence. As they grow older they are exposed to an ever increasing range of harmful influences—drugs being a prime one—and strong peer pressure can mean that the lowest common denominator in behaviour can easily become the norm.
Parents find it difficult to cope and need help. We are constantly made aware of violent and anti-social behaviour in our schools. That is not just in urban areas; it can be in villages, towns, and cities in any part of the country. Unemployment, poverty and deprivation research has shown that economic deprivation, family criminality and school failure, as well as parental mishandling, are important predictions of offending. The crucial factor is the relationship between parent and child. How can we get better parenting? We should go back to the schools and look at the curriculum. It is too prescriptive. As it is, it cannot achieve the purpose of education which Section 1 of the 1988 Act states is to prepare pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life.
Personal life skills must be a part of the curriculum. Example must be offered by the atmosphere and ethic of the school. Children will not learn to respect others if members of the school are not mutually respectful. They will not learn to negotiate, compromise and
304
resolve conflict constructively if they are being bullied or coerced. They will not learn tolerance and non-discrimination if they are isolated from people who are different from themselves. They will not learn to participate responsibly in a democratic society if they are given no voice or responsibilities in the school community. They will not learn self-discipline if they are always being disciplined. Educating for parenthood must begin in schools.
One thing that worries me is the alienation of young people from national politics. That was mentioned by several speakers. Here again, I think that the schools could help. The all-party children group recently had a meeting at which Demos and Barnados told us of the apathy of the 18 to 25 year-olds to voting. They have a total lack of interest. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, mentioned that also. If we are to have a fully democratic society they must be involved. The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, also mentioned that in his fascinating speech. A fairer more caring society might make them more idealistic. The present greedy, unfair society is not the one to inspire them.
I spent most of the weekend reading the excellent Audit Commission report entitled Misspent Youth, which was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and one or two other speakers. It is an excellent fully researched document. It does not just clearly outline the problems which exist in society today—it is immensely readable—it gives many examples of policies which could be followed which will improve society and help with all the difficulties we are now suffering. It makes a number of recommendations and it gives examples of good practice in a great many areas. There are examples from both at home and abroad—for instance, the HALT programme in Holland—which we could well look at and learn from.
The introduction points out the huge rise in crimes against individuals. It increased by 73 per cent. between 1981 and 1995 to 19 million, and against retailers and manufacturers it increased to 9 million, involving losses of £1 billion. It is predominantly young people who commit these offences.
Part 2 of the report, entitled "Tackling Offending Behaviour", I found an encouraging read. It first outlines the unnecessary costs—the very large costs—of the work involved in preparing cases for court, when one in four cases is withdrawn or results in conditional or absolute discharge. There is an appalling length of time in getting cases to court and the time which such cases take is a total waste. If only the time were shorter, the better it would be for young people. The commission report states that £40 million could be saved. If all the money that were saved could be spent on establishing schemes for community services of some kind, or on educational courses such as motor mechanics for joyriders—the Bumpy Project deals with motorbikes—a great deal of money could be saved and a much more satisfactory outcome achieved.
I wish that I had time to outline some of the successful projects which have been started in some areas. There is such a lot of good practice; for instance,

305
the Northamptonshire Diversion Unit, the HALT programme started in Rotterdam, the Dalston Youth Project in Hackney. All that has led me to take a much more optimistic view of the future. There are things that can be done but they need imagination and acceptance by the Government that what has been happening in our criminal justice system has not been successful.
I really do hope that we can have some assurance from the Minister that there will be a change from this harsh, punitive attitude which seems to dominate, at any rate, the Home Secretary. It has been extremely expensive and there are other much better means to create a caring and happier society which I believe that all who have spoken in the debate want to see.
6.2 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, perhaps I may begin by offering my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Enniskillen, on his very interesting and perceptive maiden speech. I am sure that in a debate such as this, which can often become somewhat insular, we found it fascinating to hear a more world-wide perspective. We were reminded of the problems which are faced by young people in other countries and the fact that they are more severe than those faced in this country.
It has been a very busy day for my noble kinsman Lord Russell. It started with an article in the Independent and it will end with this debate. Indeed, I dare say that it will not end with the debate because I imagine that he will return to his university duties. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, reminded us, the noble Earl was one of the guests and winners at the Spectator/Highlands Park parliamentary luncheons. I mention the fact that it was a Spectator/Highlands Park luncheon because I believe that both sponsors should be mentioned. Perhaps if part of the noble Earl's prize involved products from that second sponsor he might wish to share them with some other Members of this House—
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is the spirit!
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is also cheaper today than it was yesterday.
The Government do not underestimate the many problems which confront young people in this country today. The world seems to be a more complicated place. But, as many speakers have made clear, we do young people a disservice if we play down not only their achievements but also the many opportunities available to them. Too often the press and media concentrate on a small minority who get into trouble with the law. As was stressed by a number of noble Lords, most young people pursue responsible lives and many play a significant part in the successful running of our communities. In the words of the Motion, most are able to make a very "full contribution to society".
However, if young people are to thrive in today's and tomorrow's world, they will need a number of things and I wish to emphasise four points. First, they will need
306
a sound general education with all that that implies. Secondly, they will need relevant vocational skills. My noble friend Lord Pilkington spoke about the importance of vocational training and I shall say more about that later.
Thirdly, they will need the right personal skills; that is, adaptability, enterprise, the ability to work in teams and the capacity to keep on learning and relearning into adult life in particular to fit them for the modern employment conditions which prevail. The right reverend Prelate spoke about the damage caused to some working-class men by the loss of what were seen as the traditional male jobs. Yes, obviously things have changed in the labour market, and changed dramatically. We cannot prevent that; obviously, things always will change. That is why it is important to get education and training right and what we have to do is to make it clear that we can train our young people for today's and tomorrow's workplace. Again, more of that later.
Fourthly, as we discussed last July in the debate initiated by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and two weeks ago in a debate on morality and schools initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, it is vital that the upbringing by parents—I wish to emphasise their absolutely primary role—and schools equips young people with the appropriate values and morality. I agree with my noble kinsman Lord Russell on the importance of example in terms of equipping young people with the appropriate values and morality.
However, I partially disagree with the noble Earl on the important subject of youth unemployment. I accept that it is high—some 15 per cent. of 15 to 24 year-olds in this country—and I accept that that is very regrettable at a time when unemployment is falling for all other groups. However, I hope that when the noble Earl looks at those countries which have over-regulated, minimum-wage, social-chapter economies—I refer to France, Italy and Spain—he will see how much worse youth unemployment can be. I urge him to remind his colleagues in his party and in others of the dangers of those minimum wages, over-regulated labour forces and the social chapter if they want to preserve the jobs of young people.
The Government's duty is to establish a framework within which young people can be well educated and well adjusted as individuals; to give them opportunities both economically and socially; and to provide a secure foundation on which to build. But young people themselves have a major part to play in developing the self-reliance which will help them to become well adjusted and confident. It is they who must take advantage of the opportunities on offer. For example, the youth service—both local authority and voluntary sector—plays a substantial part by providing young people with a chance to grow through planned programmes of informal personal and social education. I say to the right reverend Prelate and to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that we have not seen a decline in local authority spending on the youth service. The latest local authority returns—those for 1994-95—show that

307
expenditure by local authorities on the youth service rose by some 2.32 per cent. in cash terms to £281.8 million as compared with 1993-94.
I accept that the picture is varied and that individual LEAs have on many occasions reduced their service. I would ask them to look at that again. However, the overall picture is not one of the decline which the noble Lord pointed out. Many such activities are recognised in a tangible way through awards such as the Duke of Edinburgh Awards and the Youth Clubs UK Awards Scheme, which my honourable friend Mr. Paice launched last month. But young people must decide whether to participate; they cannot be forced and nor should they be.
I also believe that voluntary organisations have a long and honourable record in this field and my department supports them with a substantial programme of grants. Currently there is a three-year programme of £9 million. That represents a 6 per cent. rise over the previous programme. But there are other government departments. I have been briefed for this debate by a host of other departments that play their part. One that was not involved in the briefings offered me is my former department, the Ministry of Defence. I pay tribute to the work it does in supporting the various cadet forces. Anyone who has seen what the cadet forces do in various parts of the country, both in urban and rural areas, will recognise the wonderful work they do with young people.
The same is true of the Scouts and Guides and a whole host of other organisations. As to them, I would ask local authorities who have seen fit to withdraw grants from Scouts and Guides in the past on the spurious grounds of political correctness to think again. Like the cadets, the Scouts and Guides perform a wonderful service and do much to help young people make their full contribution to society.
Volunteering is one of our priorities. This can provide immense, valuable opportunities for young people by offering them fulfilling opportunities to contribute to their communities. As part of the Government's make-a-difference, the Department of National Heritage recently launched a £3 million grant programme to ensure that it is easy for everyone to get involved. We are particularly keen to make opportunities available for the young. We have pledged that by the end of 1997 every young person who wants it will have the opportunity to volunteer.
My noble friend Lady Macleod referred to problems of housing and spoke very movingly about the problems of the young and homeless at Christmas. I commend—as I am sure the whole House does—the work that my noble friend and so many others do to help those who face loneliness and difficulties at Christmas. But as my noble friend made clear, the Government—through the Department of the Environment, through the rough sleepers' initiative—have done a great deal to get people off the streets and sleeping rough. The voluntary sector agencies estimated that there were between 1,000 and 2,000 sleeping rough on any night in central London in 1990 before the rough sleepers' initiative began. In the latest count by voluntary sector agencies in the same
308
area, in May 1996, that figure had dropped to some 288 people sleeping rough, of whom only 59 were recorded as being under the age of 25 years, and only six of those were under 18. It has achieved a great deal. I hope very much that it will achieve a great deal more.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the extension of housing benefit rules for the under-25s to all single people under the age of 60. We have discussed on earlier occasions those rules relating to the under-25 year-olds. The under-25 restriction on housing benefit was debated on 14th May this year in this House. The noble Earl expressed his reservations then but the Government said that the private rented sector would respond, and there is nothing new to suggest otherwise. The extension of the rules to all single people under 60 builds on that change.
The Government are concerned about the growth in one-person households and take the view that the benefits system should not encourage that growth at the expense of the taxpayer.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Can he tell us whether, since 14th May, the Government have conducted any research into the amount of shared accommodation available?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I regret that I shall have to write to my noble kinsman on that particular point.
We take the view that we should not encourage, at the expense of the taxpayer, the growth of single households of that sort. The proposed extension will be the subject of consultation with local authorities and the Social Security Advisory Committee. The Government will listen to representations made by the noble Lord and by all interested parties who provide housing in that area. Obviously that will deal with many of the concerns of the noble Earl.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, spoke about the effect of the Budget on youth training, and implied that there were further unnecessary cuts. Next year an additional £22 million—that is up 3 per cent.—will be available for the youth training programmes compared with the expected spend this year, rising to an additional £72 million—that is 10 per cent.—by 1999-2000. There will be an extra £128 million over the next three years compared with the forecast spend this year. There are sufficient resources next year for some 248,000 training places compared to about 240,000 this year. That sustains the guarantee of training for young people not in education or employment. The plans also provide for a continuing build-up of modern apprenticeships. That means that by the turn of the century modern apprenticeships will be achieving some 60,000 NVQs at Level 3 each year.
In the final analysis it is our educational system that can do most to equip young people to make their full contributions to society. I echo the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, in that. I would underline to him that that is why we believe it is so important to invest in education. That is exactly what my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear we were doing in his Budget Statement yesterday.

309
We believe that those leaving school who are alienated, illiterate and with little idea of the world of work are unlikely—although there will always be exceptions—to make much contribution to society. They are much more likely, as others would put it, to be taking from society in some of the many ways that were alluded to earlier—through crime, demands on social security, ill-health or general anti-social behaviour. That is why it is so vitally important for the nation that as many young people as possible continue in education and in training.
I am pleased to say that participation rates are still growing. In 1995-96 86 per cent. of 16 year-olds participated in either education or training; the figure for 17 year-olds was 79 per cent.; and for 18 year-olds it was nearly 60 per cent. Almost one-third of young people are now entering full-time higher education compared with 12 per cent. in 1979. The total numbers over the past 17 years have doubled and doubled again. Higher education has changed from being an elite system to a mass one without, dare I say it, a decline in standards.
I noticed with enormous interest—and I do not know whether it is his party's policy—that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, claimed that we are now producing too many graduates. If the noble Earl thinks that, I hope that he will address those particular points to the Dearing Inquiry because I am sure that Sir Ron would be very grateful for his thoughts. But I would remind the noble Earl that even the CBI feels that that level of about one in three 18 year-olds is too low. They recommend a figure of some 40 per cent., a figure that we have already attained in Scotland. I would be very wary of the noble Earl saying that we have too many graduates when it is at that level when many others say that we have a need for more.
I do not accept the allegations of the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, about student poverty. The noble Earl will be aware that we published our survey into student incomes only last week. That showed a growth in student incomes over the past few years. It is worth pointing out before the noble Earl interrupts me—which he is about to do—that we have possibly the most generous student support system in the entire world. I invite the noble Earl to ask, say, French students whether they can live away from home when they are away at university, as most English and Scottish students do.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I would like to thank all the noble Lords who have spoken.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thought my noble kinsman was about to intervene, which is why I gave way. I do have further points that I would like to run through before I give the noble Earl the opportunity to intervene.
Very briefly, I want to underline the importance that the Government place on education. That is why we have introduced reforms over the last few years to improve choice and diversity and to raise standards. That is why we have given more powers to schools;
310
that is why we have allowed schools to create more diversity, as stressed by my noble friend Lord Pilkington; that is why we have given greater choice, greater power and greater involvement to parents. That is why we have provided far more information in the schools. That is why we introduced performance tables, and again I am grateful for the words of my noble friend Lord Pilkington who made clear just how useful they have been. That is why we have brought in inspection, and inspection on a very regular basis—roughly once every four years—for all schools. That is why we have introduced the national curriculum.
When one looks at the improved numbers of students going to university, the improved A-Level results, and the improved GCSE results—and it is wrong to undermine the commitment on the students taking those exams—it can be seen that we really have achieved a great deal in that field.
Perhaps I may deal with two particular points on schools which were put to me. First, I was asked by the noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Tope, about the selling off of playing fields. I dealt with that recently at Question Time. However, I must make it clear that we have laid down minimum standards for schools below which they should not go. The Prime Minister has made it clear that schools' needs should be retained; in other words, they must adhere to those regulations. But it would be wrong to lay down an absolute blanket ban on the sale of all playing fields where schools have more than they need. In those circumstances, in the interest of education, it can be for the benefit of either the school itself or the LEA that playing fields should be sold.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with exclusions, and I am talking about exclusion with a small "e" as dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Obviously exclusion from schools is not the answer, but it is important to put the number of exclusions into proper perspective. Ofsted says that the great majority of schools are orderly places. The latest data which we have in the department show the national total of permanent exclusions at some 11,000 in 1994-95 which represents 0.15 per cent. of the schools population. But I believe that schools must have that right to exclude that very small minority of pupils whose behaviour is so severely disruptive. I believe also that it is for the schools to recognise that they have a duty to promote better behaviour and as far as possible to avoid that need for exclusion they should use that power only in the most severe cases.
I appreciate that in the time available I have not been able to cover all the points which have been raised in what has been a very wide-ranging debate. However, I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that the Government have instituted a wide range of action designed to enable young people to make a full contribution to society. Had we not, our society would have been the poorer for it.

311
I should like to conclude on a positive note by praising young people for their involvement in a way that enriches all our lives. As I said at the start, I believe that many play a very significant part and for most the opportunities are greater than they have ever been.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he give specific evidence to support his assertion that Labour-controlled local authorities reduced expenditure on the Scouts for politically correct reasons? In asking that question, I declare an interest as mother of three sons who were members of the Scout movement and as vice-president of that movement in Lancashire.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness should take care to listen to what I say. I said that some local authorities have done that for what I thought were politically correct reasons. I did not say that it was Labour councils which were doing that, but I dare say that a great many are.
Lord Tope: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene because if they are not Labour-controlled councils, then the Minister must be implying that they are Liberal Democrat councils because there is only one Conservative local education authority left in the country. If he is to make those assertions, he really should be more specific rather than to condemn us all.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can think of at least two Conservative-controlled LEAs. There is Westminster and Wandsworth and also Bromley. They all have the benefit of receiving children from Labour-controlled areas who have parents on the Front Bench opposite of another place who do not like the schools in their Labour-controlled education authorities.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I wonder what that has to do with grants for the Scout movement. Perhaps the Minister will answer the question which was put to him and will be more specific about those LEAs. I forgot about London, although why I should have done, I do not know. There are at least five Conservative LEAs. I assume that they are not the ones he was talking about. He said that he was not referring specifically to Labour LEAs. Therefore, he must be talking about Liberal Democrat LEAs, which I am certain is not the case. Will the Minister be specific about what he is referring to?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there have been allegations that some authorities—and I am not going to name them—have withdrawn grants from the Scout and Guide movements. The noble Lord cannot deny that. If he would like chapter and verse I will provide that for him. The simple fact is that some authorities have done it and have done it probably for what I would describe as politically correct reasons.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, is the noble Lord unable or unwilling to name the authorities?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not able to at this moment. That is the point that I was trying to make.
6.25 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, first, I must apologise to the Minister for my misunderstanding of a few moments ago. He observed correctly that I had been tempted to intervene. What he had not observed was that I had then decided to resist the temptation so he played his stroke before the ball was bowled. I am sorry for that misunderstanding.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, especially the noble Earl, Lord Enniskillen, for an extremely fascinating maiden speech. That is not a figure of speech. This has been an extremely interesting debate because we have had a very clear consensus among practically all of the speakers including, on a number of points, the Minister.
The first point on which there was agreement is that the 1960s are over; that we are no longer concerned with problems of the young who are generally irresponsible. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for putting on record the point that young people are very different from each other. The only similarity to which I wished to draw attention is in relation to the hurdles, many of them legal and many of them discriminatory, which they all have to jump. That is something about which we are agreed.
The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, in a fascinating speech summed up that feeling that the 1960s are over by recording the opinion, clear in his survey, that one of the most important things is working hard at school. In general, with a few inevitable exceptions, we are not talking about irresponsible people.
The other point about which there was a general consensus is that something is going wrong and something needs to be done about it. That point of view came from a wide range of occupations and I find that really impressive. We heard that from the point of view of education, the magistracy—and perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, that I listened to her speech with very great interest and I thought that she was right in practically everything she said; I regard it a privilege to follow her—the Church, where again we agreed on practically everything, social work, conservation, business, advertising, law and local government. When there is a consensus over such a wide range, it suggests that that may be something which needs to be observed.
I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said what she did about young people who become parents. While she was talking, I remember a pupil of mine who asked permission to change the time of her tutorial without warning because her younger sister, still at school, was about to give birth. She did. The whole family rallied round. The parents are both graduates and are now married and living together happily. That is what I understand by investing in the future.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady David, that I did not follow her on the issue of what was done for single parents yesterday for the only reason that I have done so in this morning's newspaper and I did not wish to repeat myself. I will in future; do not worry.

313
I must admit that the Minister led me into temptation. I did my best not to make a party speech but some of the things he said tempt a party reply. I shall not go into detail on the issue of the Scouts, although I must declare an interest as a former Scout. However, I noticed that the Minister said that he thought the reasons were politically correct. That is, as Perry Mason would call it, a conclusion of the witness. I do not think that Ministers understand quite how desperate is the shortage of funds in local government. If that is the reason for which any grant has been withdrawn from any Scout organisation, I suggest that the Minister might first cast out the beam which is in his own eye.
On housing benefit, I note that no research has been done on the amount of shared accommodation available. I did not enter into any debate on the morality of principle of what the Government are doing; I do so merely on its practicality—whether there is enough accommodation available to make it possible for them to do what they are doing. They do not know whether that is the case. That, I must admit, I do not think is responsible.
The Minister tempted me on social chapter economies. Apart from the formal figures of unemployment, which are difficult to compare on the basis of a level playing field, there is the gross problem, to which I drew attention, of under-employment and underpaid work. Government Ministers regularly talk about a competitive advantage in not observing these regulations. However, dismantling a tariff barrier is very much the economic equivalent of disbanding one's armies. One gives up the idea of hostile competition. One cannot do that unless one accepts competing on equal terms. If one is to argue for these competitive advantages, one upends the level playing field and disqualifies oneself for the single market. The Minister might have thought of those points before he introduced that matter. I also think that he might take note of the bulk of information about young people not having adequate contact with their fathers, which may often be because of the number of hours those fathers are working. As he introduces these points, I hope he will forgive me for replying to them.
I passed the noble Lord a note across the Chamber asking whether the youth training and youth training bridging allowances have been uprated in the Budget. They have not been since 1988. I have not received a reply. I take it, therefore, that the answer is no.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for giving way. He will understand there is a convention that I speak only for 20 minutes when winding up. That is why I did not respond to a great many of the points put to me. I shall respond to a number of those, as appropriate, in writing in due course. The noble Earl should not interpret my lack of response on any particular point in the manner in which he wishes to interpret it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister warmly for that reply. I shall live in hope. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Voluntary Work
6.32 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf Lord Dahrendorf rose to call attention to the contribution of voluntary and charitable activities to individual as well as social well-being, to the relations between the voluntary sector and government, and in particular to the report by the Commission on the Future of the Voluntary Sector; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to introduce a debate in your Lordships' House given the extraordinary range of experience on any given subject which is assembled here. I, for one, look forward in particular to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford.
One of the reasons I grew fond of this country, to the point at which I wanted to become, and eventually became, a citizen, is its vibrant civil society. When things need to be done, people do not wait for the state, for government to step in but get together and do it themselves. As a result the country is held together by the voluntary and charitable activities of individuals in innumerable, often local, associations; it does not fall apart at times when governments fail to give a lead. There is no better guarantee of liberty.
Some have tried to count the innumerable associations and have found there are at least 120,000. Therefore, as a result, there must be about 750,000 trustees of charities. Apparently many of them do not even know that they are trustees, although no doubt those of your Lordships who are among this number do. That must include virtually every Member of your Lordships' House. Thus every speaker tonight will probably declare an interest, albeit one without remuneration and often without recognition, but one which is a great source of satisfaction to them and to those whom they serve. My interest, among others, is that I have succeeded the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, as chairman of the Council for Charitable Support; an organisation to which I shall refer again briefly.
Charities and voluntary organisations in this country go back a long way. The law has recognised them since Elizabethan times. In recent years however this whole "sector"—as it is unbeautifully called—has grown in importance, if not necessarily in size. There are at least two reasons for such growth. One is the withdrawal of the state from important areas of our lives. As a liberal I like a lean state, although I also want strong local government and a sensible measure of social provision for those in need. Moreover, it is often difficult to persuade people to give either time or money where a gap has merely been created by the withdrawal of public provision. Still, it is evident that no country, however rich, can provide certain services, such as long-term care for elderly people, out of the public purse. Where the state is absent and families fail, voluntary action is often the only resource left. We all have to become communitarians to make sure that decency and humanity do not go out of our lives.
The other reason the voluntary sector has grown in importance lies in the changes which are occurring in the world of work. The debate about the 48-hour week

315
is but a distraction from the much more important fact that a growing number of people above 55 years of age no longer have jobs; that many young people are—in the words of the Motion we debated earlier this afternoon—prevented from making their "full contribution to society"; and that the majority experience periods in and out of paid employment. Many things need to be done; many people have reserves of time. How do we put the two together? The American economic author, Jeremy Rifkin, has recently argued in his book The End of Work, that we have a choice between an increasing number of disgruntled and potentially criminal people without employment, and, as he puts it, "empowering the third sector".
In support of the Motion I wish to comment briefly on three questions. First, what should the voluntary sector do to get its act together? Secondly, what is, and what should be, the role of government in relation to the voluntary sector? Thirdly, what can be, and what needs to be done, in order to increase support for voluntary and charitable activities—both in terms of money and time? In all three respects I found the report by the commission chaired by Professor Nicholas Deakin entitled Voluntary action into the 21st century, informative, full of ideas and generally helpful, as is the response by government, in the title of which the Secretary of State for National Heritage adopts Deakin Commission terminology by calling it "Raising the Voltage".
First, as regards the sector itself, it is in my view of critical importance never to forget that diversity is the lifeblood of the voluntary sector. I go further and assert that the whole point of voluntary and charitable activity is that it can be idiosyncratic in purpose, amateurish in organisation, prone to make mistakes, and even fail in its objectives. It is indeed—and it should be—a creative chaos, within the law; of course, if that is not asking for the impossible. If anything, the Deakin Report recommends too much co-ordination and central organisation for my liking. The voluntary sector must never become, or strive to become, an alternative structure of government, even at the local level.
At the same time, there clearly are areas of overlap between the three so-called "sectors"; that is, voluntary activity, business and government. The Charities Aid Foundation, of which I am a trustee, helps individuals and businesses to direct funds to appropriate charities. Business in the Community has become an indispensable organisation, not just for funding initiatives but for providing management time, as it were. For good reasons the National Council for Voluntary Organisations which initiated the Deakin Report, as well as the Volunteer Centre, receives some government funding. It makes sense in the light of such facts to create a forum to pool experience, explore needs and, from time to time, express views either publicly or towards government. In a modest and deliberately unrepresentative way, the Council for Charitable Support has done that since the late Lord Goodman set it up. I understand that this council may soon be replaced by a somewhat more representative national forum.
Secondly, I refer to relations with government. I suppose that Raising the Voltage means that government should put more energy into the needs of the voluntary sector. There is some debate about the recent move of the Voluntary and Community Division from the Home Office to the Department of National Heritage. I understand that the Labour spokesman for the voluntary sector in another place, Mr. Alun Michael, is still a member of the shadow Home Office team. Professor Deakin would like to see it all in the Cabinet Office. I confess that I cannot get excited about these arcane matters of bureaucratic location or even about a "concordat" between the sector and government, which Professor Deakin wants and Mrs. Bottomley does not like.
However, two things seem to me of major importance. One is that government at all levels—national, regional and local—make voluntary and charitable activity easier rather than more difficult. That may well require greater co-ordination within government (as by the Cabinet committee which the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, proposed in his 1995 Goodman lecture). There is also the attempt suggested in the Government's response to the Deakin Report to work out,
"some general principles that might assist the mutual understanding between government departments and voluntary organisations, to improve co-operation and good practice".
The important point is that government through their various agencies keep regulation of voluntary and charitable activities effective but also light. The Charity Commission is an unusual and rightly respected instrument in this regard. Perhaps it is ultimately better than any hard-and-fast definition of charities. It must not exaggerate the needs of efficiency and thus of control. Government in general should let the associations of voluntary action get on with their jobs even if some of their funding is taxpayers' money.
That takes me, thirdly, to the matter of funding. It would be tempting to start with the Budget. In one area it has what I regard as a perverse and, I assume, an unintended effect. Every penny off income tax takes £14 million from charities because of the effect on covenanted donations. It is a strange point which the Minister might ponder. However in 1994-95, charities in total raised no less than £15 billion. That is not including any valuation of the time given by the 700,000 trustees or the millions of volunteers. About one-third of that money consists of central and local government grants. The rest, however, comes from individuals, businesses and other sources. If one adds to such figures the fact that apart from its volunteers the sector has nearly 400,000 people in paid employment, one gains an idea of its economic as well as its social importance.
Many initiatives by individuals and groups contribute to funding voluntary and charitable activities. Among them the National Lottery has obviously acquired a special place in recent years. Probably some charities have suffered from the lure of gambling; others have not. The National Lottery Charities Board has done an excellent job in identifying deserving organisations and helping them especially with that most important yet often neglected need—the core funding of organisations.
If I had one wish to be granted in that regard, it has to do with the millennium. Instead of a big splash, or perhaps in addition to a much smaller splash, I should like to see a millennium foundation established with lottery money. It should be handsomely endowed with at least £1 billion and it should be available for 100 if not 1000 years in order to fund initiatives of the kind preferred by the big American foundations like Ford, Rockefeller or MacArthur. That funding invariably includes and often concentrates on core funding including endowment funding. When I put the case to the Secretary of State, she seemed interested. I hope that in due course such interest will be translated into courageous action. Thinking big and long-term is one of the important aspects of the subject that we debate tonight.
When a Motion similar to that which I have put before your Lordships today was debated in another place on 23rd July of this year, the Member for Stratford-on-Avon who spoke in the debate began by saying,
"In debating the future of the voluntary sector, we are debating the nature of our moral community".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/7/96; col. 235.)
How true, my Lords. Much has been done and no doubt more needs to be done to create wealth in the rough winds of the global marketplace. But none of that drive for competitiveness must detract from the moral texture of our lives, from social cohesion. Keeping Britain strong in this regard is one of the great tasks of the next decade and more. Fortunately we do not have to rely on government alone to that end but can each make our contribution. I beg to move for Papers.
6.48 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, on his good fortune in the ballot and for drawing our attention to the voluntary and charitable activities. My speech will not stretch to the maximum 14 minutes. That is all the better because it will bring forward the time when we can enjoy the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Byford.
I start by declaring an interest in the fields of forestry, agriculture and the environment, as vice-president of the Council for National Parks and the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers. The Council for National Parks helps to protect our national parks which give great pleasure to many millions of people each year. One of their vital roles is the development of new initiatives such as sustainable development policies to conserve our most treasured landscapes. I am therefore pleased that the commission recognised the expertise of the voluntary sector and the value of involving voluntary organisations in the early stages of innovative planning.
Volunteering in the environmental sector is a segment of volunteers too often ignored in public discourse, despite its increasing popularity. To any individual, voluntary activity, as mentioned in the noble Lord's Motion, can make a positive contribution to that person's wellbeing—their sense of self-worth. There is companionship, and there are new friendships. Spending an afternoon getting covered in mud and adjourning to a pub for a well-earned pint does not happen just to
318
football and rugby players. Volunteers cleaning out a pond have just as much fun and enjoy their pint just as much. There is also a sense of worth from work accomplished. That is especially important for someone feeling himself or herself to be on the fringes of their community: the unemployed, people with learning difficulties or those who do not make friends easily. There are new skills passed on, some of which might be threatened, such as hedge laying and drystone walling. There is exposure to complex environmental issues, with the basis of understanding that not all problems are black and white, or solutions easy to find.
To the community as a whole, there are important contributions: the work actually accomplished—trees planted, litter removed, an urban wasteground turned into an oasis for wildlife. It can be amazingly important to a neighbourhood, estate or village that a local problem has been tackled by the people themselves. Local communities are strengthened tangibly and intangibly by neighbours coming together to work on projects to benefit them all—something negative has been turned into something positive. The new skills learnt and the sense of accomplishment benefit the community as well as the individual.
Although it is unwise to try to put a price tag on everything, there is a monetary value to the work thus accomplished which we ignore at our peril. I shall not deluge your Lordships with statistics, but quote only one figure from an organisation with which, as I said, I am connected, the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers. The value of environmental work done by conservation volunteers organised directly by BTCV in one year in the United Kingdom was £18.5 million.
It is for those reasons that the Government have contributed directly and indirectly to the voluntary sector. They have invested financially by means of grants, and that financial support is extremely important. I will not harp on the subject of grants, except to stress that notwithstanding the occasional scare stories the media discover, voluntary organisations are run with a leanness that would make many of our public bodies gasp and with a return on public investment with which any private sector industry could be pleased. For the environmental work by conservation volunteers that I mentioned earlier the return was nine to one.
But there is more than a monetary relationship to be considered. Within the past couple of years the Government have taken thoughtful steps to examine the sector as a whole and consider the interaction between the two. The Make a Difference initiative mentioned earlier canvassed widely to solicit ideas and direction and brought forward a comprehensive list of 81 recommendations concerning the interaction between government and voluntary organisations and volunteers. As the recommendations cover an extremely broad range of issues, consideration and implementation of them all will take time, but I take this opportunity to urge the Government to continue as they have started. The movement of the Civil Service office concerned with voluntary sector affairs to the new Voluntary and Community Division in the Department of National Heritage is welcome. It demonstrates the Government's understanding of the importance that volunteering has

319
in our society. I look forward to increased attention to the potential of the sector and more sophisticated understanding, analysis and support from the division. One point I would hope to see is an end to the contradictions caused by one departmental policy running counter to another, often at the expense of volunteering.
I wish to stress just how important government funding is to the work of bodies such as CNP and BTCV, not just in its own right but as a means of helping to lever contributions from other sectors. I am pleased that the Government will be considering tax relief options that encourage individual giving and that the Department of National Heritage will be encouraging private sector involvement with charities for mutual benefit.
I hope that the Government will examine very carefully the possibility of using the National Lottery for revenue support. However, in saying so, I am mindful of just how much society benefits from the day-in, day-out charitable work which risks being neglected by the current concentration on big capital projects by the lottery.
The Government are well placed therefore to enter the debate engendered by the report of the Commission on the Future of the Voluntary Sector. Improved co-ordination via a Cabinet Committee, and including voluntary sector organisations at early stages of policy formulation, are straightforward suggestions requiring serious consideration. The environment sector in this country depends as much on the voluntary organisations such as BTCV, the RSPB, the National Trust and the wildlife trusts as it does on government departments and statutory agencies. Without the dedication and enthusiasm of the millions of members and volunteers working daily in the environment this country would be a poorer place.
It is clear, therefore, that the independence of voluntary and community organisations must be safeguarded. However, voluntary work must not become a substitute for activity that is properly the responsibility of the state or the market. New sources of financial support are needed to supplement funding from both government and business. Charities need not be rich in pocket, but need to be worthy and wealthy enough to see that the richness of ability, enhanced by the voluntary sector, rewards the real fabric of our society.
6.56 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, when I listen to a debate in favour of voluntary action initiated so eloquently from the Liberal Benches, my mind goes back rather further than July of this year. It goes back to 1949. I remember a debate that took place then, very much along the same lines as this one, in which the proposer was Lord Samuel, then the Liberal Leader. At that time, being a general dogsbody for the Government, I was called upon to reply. In 1949, the heyday of the Attlee Government, it was still very uncertain what sort of attitude the Labour Party would take in the post-war world to voluntary action. It was regarded in some quarters as rather similar to privatisation today.
320
Herbert Morrison, the deputy leader of the party, whom I consulted, would have none of that. He insisted from the beginning that we should take a very firm party line, an international line, on behalf of voluntary action. I remember that he dictated some of the key phrases in the speech that I delivered in this House. He said, "Voluntary action is the lifeblood of democracy. Without voluntary action, democracy loses its soul." I received the credit for those eloquent phrases which in fact came from Herbert Morrison who had a good deal more authority. I am sure that that is how the Labour Party still sees the matter today; and I hope it is how the Minister sees it.
Perhaps I should reveal a guilty secret about the Minister which he may have suppressed as he has made his way upward in Conservative circles. I am told that I bear the same relationship to him that Neville Chamberlain bore to my wife. I do not know whether that helped either of them very much. Well, it has worked all right in the case of my wife, so it may work all right in the case of the noble Lord, leaving Chamberlain and myself to fend as best we can. I am very pleased that he is to reply.
Since we have 14 minutes in which to speak, which is seven minutes longer than I usually take and longer than I expected, I shall expand a little. Listening to the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, I think of his great ancestor, who was my mentor and instructor when I first came to this House in 1949. I am told that new Peers now have induction classes. I do not know what they are taught. Lord Astor was the great inductor of the noble Viscount's ancestor. He applied one particular process of induction which could perhaps be suitably applied today. I remember one occasion when I thought I was speaking well and he kicked me on the back of the leg. I agree that that could apply only to a Front Bench speaker. He kicked me, and hissed in my ear, "Sit down now. You've got the House with you. You'll lose it if you go on any longer". Of course, that tactic does not please the civil servant who has drafted the speech. Nevertheless, it was good party tactics.
So we find ourselves discussing this great question. As everyone has said, we have all been connected with many voluntary organisations. Personally, I have reached the stage where I find it safer to be a patron rather than a trustee. As a trustee you never know whether the thing might go "phut" and you will be called on. It is much safer to be a patron. That is a personal angle.
We must all do what we can in support of voluntary action. I shall mention three organisations, all recognised as doing good work today. I am president of one of them; the other two I founded with devoted help. I am president of the Matthew Trust, but I have done little to build up the trust. Ninety nine point nine per cent. of the credit goes to a remarkable man, Peter Thompson, who found himself in Broadmoor for four years. Re-emerging, he built up the Matthew Trust and after 20 years it is a respected organisation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has told us more than once. There was a Minister who was less kind about the Matthew Trust, saying that those who benefited were unworthy, or words to that effect. In latter days the

321
noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, speaking for the Government, has said more than once that the Government holds it in high respect.
The question may be asked: what help has the Matthew Trust had from the Government? The answer is none whatever. It is worth asking why. I am connected with organisations which get help from the Government and I will not say whether they are more or less worthy, but the Matthew Trust has never had any help at all. It is rather the other way around. Peter Thompson was asked to preach in Broadmoor and contribute to the funds there. So it is not a question of the prodigal son having the fatted lamb cooked for him; it is more a question of the prodigal son cooking the fatted lamb for the father who thought he had lost him.
The achievement of Peter Thompson in building up the Matthew Trust is a remarkable story. I have never known anything like it in my time.
I turn to New Bridge, which I founded with expert help. I was involved in the inquiry for the Nuffield Foundation at the time. I visited many prisons. I opened the first debate in this House on prisons in the year in which the organisation was founded. The immediate impulse came from the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. I need not go into all the details, but the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, helped to devise the name, New Bridge, and so New Bridge for ex-prisoners was born.
Today it has an exceptionally dynamic director. Its president is the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, who is respected by all, and, strikingly, its chairman is Sir Peter Lloyd, a former Home Office Minister. I will not dwell on his attitude to the policies of the present Home Secretary. That is another matter. I am trying to conciliate and not antagonise the ministerial spokesman.
At any rate, we have those fine people associated with the organisation. It has a network of help. Its volunteers are active throughout the prisons and it has, among other things, initiated a paper called Inside Time, written almost entirely by prisoners. I am glad to think that my daughter is one of the people most actively associated with the paper. It is a fine body. But what help does it get from the Government? It gets some help, but not very much. An employment agency which it operates does receive some help but the rest of its work is unaided. I ask the Minister to take that into consideration. Why is it that the Probation Service is ready to help the employment service of New Bridge but no other help is given? Generally speaking, the Prison Service would do well to realise how much help it receives from the voluntary action, of New Bridge. Those volunteers are most valuable in the prisons; it is a shame that they do not get any help.
Finally, I founded New Horizon, again with devoted help. After resigning from the Cabinet because of the failure of the Labour Government to carry out their promise to raise the school leaving age, a promise, of course, long since carried out, I was determined to do something, particularly for the age group 15, or now 16, to 21. New Horizon is today looking after 3,000 young people, nearly all of them homeless. Mr. Jon Snow was almost the first director. He has since gone on to
322
greatness, but he remains the chairman of New Horizon. The director is extremely efficient. They are undoubtedly doing valuable work.
It is worth considering how they are now placed, or how anybody who helps the homeless young is now placed. I am informed that the total grants going to youth have been cut by something like half in the last 15 years. It is extremely difficult for anyone trying to help youth to do the job that they have been doing. I must ask the Minister to bear that in mind.
A psychological aspect upon which it will be hard for the Minister to comment tonight is something which is in the minds of all workers. I can hardly expect the Minister to be aware that all social workers in New Horizon—and not only that organisation, but many others—are as fully qualified as any of the statutory workers and yet they are treated and looked upon as second class. How can we give the voluntary workers who are full-time, qualified social workers working for voluntary bodies a better standing?
I conclude by making a general point. I hope the Minister, when he replies, will firmly say, as Herbert Morrison said, supported by the whole House, in 1949: "Voluntary action is the lifeblood of democracy. Without voluntary action, democracy loses its soul."
7.8 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: My Lords, Members of your Lordships' House who have already spoken have expressed their pleasure at the opportunity given us today to take part in this debate, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. I too wish to say how greatly I look forward to listening to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and her contribution to this discussion.
The voluntary sector itself, on which our attention is focused, embraces an astonishingly wide variety of enterprises, which range from great national bodies with professional and managerial staff, and with turnovers in many millions, to small, local groups with perhaps part-time staff and tiny shoe string budgets, the diversity to which the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, referred.
I speak with the perspective of a churchman in the North East, who is grateful to be personally associated as trustee, patron or president with quite a variety of voluntary organisations. These range, at one end of the scale, from bodies such as the Newcastle Council for Voluntary Service, which has been at work for nearly 70 years and now provides support and advice for over 300 member bodies, and the Tyne and Wear Foundation, which has had quite astonishing success in attracting, channelling and distributing funds, and thus in raising the profile of the voluntary sector, to, at the other end of the scale, pensioners groups, victim support groups, the provision of laundry services for the elderly, and so on, with all of which I am proud to be associated.
With that perspective in mind I should like to touch on three points. The first is necessarily vague and impressionistic. It concerns the maintenance of the fabric of society, more particularly, in contrasted contexts, in the inner city and urban priority areas and in isolated settings deep in the Cheviots or the Pennines.

323
Sometimes in the inner city I ask myself, "How can society possibly hold together?". A few years ago, within a few weeks, if not days, in the same district ambulances and fire engines were pelted with stones; a brand new church school was invaded and vandalised; the Salvation Army was virtually forced out—and it is not easily put down; in addition to the burning of cars and houses.
Is it all falling apart? Are parts of our cities becoming ungovernable, I asked? Then I looked more closely. There are countless voluntary and community groups sometimes chaotically criss-crossing one another, many of them vigorous and some of them expressions of self-help out of desperation in the face of impending chaos. Those groups have played and play an invaluable part in keeping society together. It is true that some of the threads looked like gossamer. They can all do with guiding and resourcing. Something not dissimilar can be seen in some of the most remote parts of rural England, in west Northumberland. Close inspection shows how a sense of community is kept alive and fostered by a myriad of voluntary activities. That precisely relates to the reference in the Motion before the House to individual and social wellbeing.
That very general point leads me to the matter of partnership. Many, indeed most, voluntary bodies are committed to the notion of partnership, which nowadays is generally partnership with the public sector. The problem is how to preserve the true spirit and expression of partnership, for partnership implies a real measure of interdependence. It is perfectly true that he who pays the piper has some right to call the tune. It is essential that the use of any public funds should be properly supervised. It is clear that many voluntary bodies could not continue to operate without the provision of public funds by one means or another. Yet the relationship should not become uneven. Finance may well be provided in part by public funds. Indeed, it has been said that there is no country today where there is a substantial voluntary sector that is not dependent on governmental support. Yet the voluntary sector provides a contribution which the Government cannot afford to dispense with. It is voluntary, freely offered and much of it unpaid. It depends on local enthusiasm and the availability of volunteers.
Traditionally, the voluntary sector has been valued precisely because it has a measure of independence. It can be innovative; take a lead in pioneering new solutions to old problems; and can do creative work of its own. Nowadays I sense that the scaling down of state provision has left gaps which the voluntary sector is expected to fill. The consequence is that funding for voluntary sector activity has become increasingly conditional, the condition being the imposition of targets from outside the organisation. So my plea is that each party in the partnership recognises and respects what the other has to offer.
The matter of partnership has implications not only for voluntary bodies, local authorities and governing bodies. It also has implications for charitable trusts. In the North East, the Tyne and Wear Foundation has done a great service in bringing together the representatives
324
of trusts and in bringing about a more strategic approach to funding of the voluntary sector. While on the subject of partnership, I should like to pay tribute to Government Office North East. It has been very helpful in building the capacity of the voluntary sector to participate in partnerships, with the local authority as an equal partner who has much to offer and indeed much to give.
In conclusion, I am certain that the role of the Churches and indeed of other faith communities needs to be mentioned in this connection. They provide a great number of anonymous volunteers on whose inspiration and commitment voluntary work depends. The Church Urban Fund has been the catalyst for hundreds of projects nationwide, all of them partnerships of one sort or another. In the Diocese of Newcastle we are just about to launch a mission and community fund which may serve to continue the initiatives made possible by the Church Urban Fund. Much of that work is done ecumenically, through agencies such as the Churches Regional Commission in the North East, a fully ecumenical body which is our corporate public face in social and community affairs. Through that agency we have all been working together in making bids in connection with the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund. There is partnership in practice.
Our various congregations certainly promote a sense of community in many neighbourhoods. Many of our individual members are moved by a sense of obligation to play their part in voluntary organisations, and a flourishing voluntary sector is, as the Deakin Report puts it, the backbone of a civil society and a vital indicator of democratic health.
7.16 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I crave your Lordships' indulgence and hope that I shall not be thought presumptuous in speaking so soon after my introduction. However, the debate today, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, is one which is close to my heart.
I declare an interest in that I am a volunteer and have been for the past 30 years. My main commitment has been to the Women's Royal Voluntary Service in Leicestershire, where I was a member of the county staff and a volunteer in my village. That involved the organisation of a wide variety of services, many of which, I am sure, are known to your Lordships, such as meals on wheels, hospital shops, children's holidays, emergency services, day centres and, in fact, refreshment centres in prisons also, of which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, reminded me when he spoke. My other voluntary work has been on the fund-raising side for a variety of charities, which is a different type of volunteering. Money is raised to provide funds for medical research and for others to provide professional care for such charities as Loros and Rainbows. On top of that, there were numerous flag days throughout the year. In fact people used to ask me, "Which hat are you wearing today?"
This country has a splendid record of voluntary service, which has been and still is a crucial part of British life. Today we are considering the whole

325
question of volunteering and charity work. I congratulate Professor Deakin and the commission members for the deep thinking which has gone into the report. It poses many questions and highlights the challenges that we face in the future. The report rightly deals with the interplay between central and local government and between the charities themselves. It discusses the whole question of standards of service, accountability and value for money. It includes the valuable contribution made by business in both management secondment and financial terms. It also includes the new contribution made by grants from the National Lottery.
My slight concern—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, who touched on it—is that too rigid a format can discourage small to medium sized voluntary organisations. Too much bureaucracy can put off the less experienced groups.
I welcome the input which the National Lottery has made to our communities. It is helping a multiplicity of interest groups, some of whom have never received such support in the past. In Leicestershire recent awards were published in our local paper—names such as Age Concern, Mission for the Deaf and the Royal Society for the Blind. Those are charities we know, but there too, more importantly, were new groups—Youth Access, community associations, an out-of-school club and a whole range of sports clubs. One project I was especially pleased to see and which was mentioned in our earlier debate was Homestart, an organisation which helps families in stress. That organisation started its being in Leicester some years ago and was recently given a grant for £192,000 to encourage it to create 60 new schemes throughout the UK during the coming three years.
Some people question the whole role of voluntary organisations in today's society. Not many years ago people thought they would fade away. In fact between 1981 and 1991 23 million people were estimated to have taken part in voluntary organisations and charities—a 15 per cent. increase. In addition, thousands more are regularly involved in and give informal caring, the full value of which it is impossible to assess.
The word "volunteer" means different things to different people and covers a wide variety of commitment. Some people are professionally paid managers for voluntary organisations and charities; others give of their time freely without fee—a service beyond self. But whether as individuals or members of self-help groups, informal carers or members of large organisations, they all work together to strengthen our local communities, bringing a range of help in both social and financial terms.
The report discusses the demographic changes we face; the changing work patterns and the need to attract young people. I am not one of those who is gloomy about the future. More people are living healthier and fuller lives and will have additional time to give. As we have heard in this debate, young people are wanting to help. I was greatly encouraged recently to learn of a new contact centre which had been formed. Those centres provide a weekend place for separated families to come
326
together. When families break up it is usually the mother who is awarded custody of the children. Fathers often move away from the area in which they have traditionally lived. Collecting their children at the weekend can give them problems if they have nowhere specific to go. The new contact centres, which are open all day on Saturdays and Sundays, provide a place in village halls and towns where the families can meet. The interesting thing is that those who are helping to look after the children are themselves young people, and it is a wonderful example of young people being involved.
So I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and I also congratulate the Government on their continued support for voluntary organisations and charities. Tax concessions, local and central government grants and the more recent input from the National Lottery have helped to strengthen charities and voluntary organisations. I am confident that they in turn will respond to the challenges facing them; that they will continue to innovate and grow, bringing greater cohesion to our local communities. It is a very British tradition and one which I am sure will continue to play an equally important part. I look forward to the expanding role that it will play in the 21st century.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I have great pleasure, on behalf of the Whole House, in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on the excellence of her speech. As it is less than a year since my own maiden effort, I can readily recall the awe and trepidation with which I approached that task. But whatever feelings the noble Baroness may have had before she rose to her feet, she spoke with felicity, charm and a great deal of knowledge—knowledge of the voluntary sector which we are debating this evening; knowledge particularly of the voluntary sector in her home county of Leicestershire, and knowledge of the Women's Royal Voluntary Service.
The noble Baroness spoke with a certain forthrightness which typified her father, Sir Cyril Osborne, who was a respected Member of the other place for many years. I understand that the noble Baroness has been a tennis coach. This afternoon she played extremely well from somewhere at the back of the court and perhaps we may see her playing closer to the net on some other occasion. We certainly look forward to her speeches on many future occasions.
This country has a tremendously proud record of voluntary endeavour. We seem to be peculiarly keen to join together to pursue philanthropic or mutual aid objectives over an incredibly wide range of subjects. Indeed, your Lordships seem to be prone to engage in or support voluntary activity even more than the general public if my postbag since I became a Member is anything to go by.
What the voluntary sector does and how it organises itself at any given moment is dependent on the way in which central and local government organise themselves. In recent years the "value for money" basis of funding from government, the creation of all kinds of local bodies and quangos taking over former functions

327
of government and the creation of the National Lottery have all had a considerable effect on the financing of the voluntary sector and on the willingness of the general public to pay to street collections.
The ancient legal rules for defining a charity are in serious and overdue need of revision. So it was timely for the National Council of Voluntary Organisations to set up an independent commission under the excellent chairmanship of Professor Nicholas Deakin of Birmingham University. His team produced a detailed and comprehensive report.
Last week this House debated relations between central and local government following the report of a Select Committee of this House entitled Rebuilding Trust. The Select Committee was concerned that over a number of years trust between central and local government had broken down. One of its recommendations was that there should be some sort of concordat. That is not a popular word with everybody, but it is interesting to note that the Deakin Commission used the same word—perhaps as a shorthand—for some sort of discussion about the general principles on which the voluntary sector, on this occasion, and government can work together and produce a code of conduct for good practice and mutual good relations for the future.
I want to concentrate in my comments this evening on relations between the voluntary sector and local government. In evidence to the Deakin Commission the official representatives of local authorities seemed to make all the right noises. The Association of County Councils, for example, stressed the value that its members attach to active co-operation with the voluntary sector,
"on the basis that the sector is a key part of the fabric of the local community".
The Association of Directors of Social Services—whose members are all employees of local authorities—said,
"it is essential that organisations concerned with community action, advocacy and voluntary activity in the purest sense of that word continue to be valued and supported".
But the work of voluntary organisations can, in certain circumstances, create jealousy, even resentment and irritation on the part of democratically elected local representatives. A councillor might ask, "What legitimacy do they have to tell us councillors how to do our job?". However, councillors are not always as close to the community as they might be; they may not reside in the ward they represent; nowadays, because of the changes I have just mentioned, they may no longer be directly responsible for service delivery; and their claim to democratic legitimacy is not necessarily all that strong when an average of only 40 per cent. of the electorate vote in local elections. A voluntary community organisation that is directly assisting disadvantaged individuals to articulate their needs to local decision-makers does surely, as the Deakin Report says—I hope I have not unduly abbreviated what it says—have a legitimate right to be heard. The Deakin Report says, in a neat form of words, that it can provide a "voice for the voiceless".
328
The commission naturally welcomes the fact that some authorities are experimenting with various forms of community and citizen participation, consultation and community development which offer new and perhaps fruitful territory for co-operation with voluntary organisations. As I and many of your Lordships sought to indicate in the debate last week on local/central government relations, I see local authorities taking on more and more the role of community leadership. But good leadership should allow and indeed encourage others to blossom and to develop their skills and talents. I say boldly, "Let a thousand flowers bloom".
In February, the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, who does us a service today in initiating the debate, performed another service by initiating a debate on wealth creation and social cohesion. In that debate I ventured to say that restoring social cohesion in the most disadvantaged parts of our major conurbations needed both changes in national policies and a bottom-up approach to a new partnership whereby central and local government share power with people living in areas that needed regeneration. Dr. Tony Gibson, whom I am sure the right reverend Prelate will know because of his work in, among other places, the Meadowell Estate in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, has said that,
"economic and social decline can be reversed but only by using the untapped and potential skills of local residents".
Since the debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, Dr. Gibson has published a book entitled Power in Our Hands—quite an evocative title—which pursues this theme of bottom-up voluntary action, drawing on numerous examples from the UK and abroad where ordinary people have done extraordinary things to create jobs, improve schooling, enhance the environment and engage in many other activities.
I mention that in this debate because we should not think of the voluntary sector as consisting only of an unchanging list of well-established and well-known organisations. We all have our favourites. Mine—just to declare one's interest—are the NSPCC, the citizens advice bureaux, the Prince of Wales Business Trust and the Birmingham Settlement. We all have our list of well-known and well-established organisations. They are all deserving of our interest and support. Long may they and others like them prosper.
However, the voluntary sector must be dynamic. It must include, and its established members should encourage, the smaller, local voluntary endeavours that local enthusiasts create out of nothing more initially than informal neighbourhood get-togethers. It does not really matter why they get together. As Dr. Gibson shows in his book, such initiatives may start with sport and social activities but lead on to activities that are significant for the community—clearing derelict sites, developing home insulation projects for the elderly, providing bulk-buying and credit union schemes, and many other projects. Local initiatives making local sense and, from small beginnings, creating or recreating a real sense of community strength and pride are of the very essence of the voluntary sector.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, it was a privilege to hear the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. It was grounded in day-to-day experience of the work of voluntary bodies and showed in every detail how valuable that kind of work can be. I hope, following my noble friend Lord Borrie, that, especially after the next election, she will consider getting closer to the net. We look forward to it.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, for initiating this debate on what I consider to be a most important subject—much more important perhaps than is yet recognised by the general public. Like all those who have taken part in the debate, and, I expect, like all those who are going to take part, I welcome the Deakin Report. It was a useful stocktaking review of the achievements and the problems of the voluntary sector. Its influence will not be soon lost. Behind that report stands the National Council for Voluntary Organisations which commissioned it. That body must have a central place in the future of the voluntary sector generally.
Its initials, NCVO, were drilled into my mind some years back by a somewhat odd experience I had. I was the first chairman of a government body, the National Consumer Council. Our first offices were in Queen Anne's Gate. That was very pleasant. Somehow or other when we started up there was an engaging man who had come from somewhere else in the Civil Service. He was a kind of porter and everyone liked him. He was keen on getting an honour. He was not alone in that. He had a look at the post each day as he was in a rather strategic position in the building. One day he came to the director of the organisation with a face of great glee and bearing an envelope which bore the initials NCVO. He thought his day had come. He thought that at last he was going to be made a Noble Commander of the Victorian Order. However, frivolity aside, the national council has a most important part to play.
My enthusiasm for the voluntary sector is reasonably well founded. It rests on my view of the opportunity the sector now has for filling a very important gap in the national life. On that I follow the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, earlier in the debate.
The greatest asset of the voluntary bodies is the sense of public service which they embody. The many millions of volunteers who work for them do not do so for the sake of financial gain to themselves. The very large number of paid staff who are also most necessary—they complement and are the organisers of the volunteers' work—do not join the voluntary bodies for the sake of the share options that they may get. Unfortunately, the sense of public service has taken a beating in the past 10 years or more. Privatisation, quangos galore and distrust have undermined the spirit of the Civil Service. Although one can hope that it will be fully restored in time, at the moment there is a gap, which I believe will continue in some form or other.
As a virtue in the public sector has been in part lost, so a virtue has been added to the voluntary sector. The domain of public service has been vacated and can be filled in part by both the old and well-established voluntary bodies and the new ones which are joining
330
them every year. Whether they will be able to take advantage of what I believe is a brilliant opportunity will depend on various conditions being met. The right relationship will have to be established with government, as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said. I very much liked his suggestion about the setting up of a millennium foundation. I hope that the Government take that seriously.
The opportunity is there but, as I say, it depends on conditions being met. Apart from establishing the right relationship with government, in my view the voluntary bodies need to take much more seriously than they have done—I am generalising wildly, of course—the need for more training for volunteers and, above all, more training for management and administrative staff. It is encouraging that more is being done than before. The Open University has a special interest in the training of volunteers and people to work in the voluntary bodies and so has the City University. Things are being done, but not enough, to add efficiency to ethic. Ethics need to be backed by efficiency, which is good and strong management. Although there are many brilliant managers in the sector, there are not as many as we would like or as many as there needs to be if the great opportunity that I have talked about is to be seized.
The moral advantage that the voluntary bodies have could even be the spearhead of a moral renaissance. That is their greatest advantage. But there is also an institutional advantage, which is that as the public sector has contracted, the voluntary sector has been able to expand. It has also been called on to do so. Of course, the voluntary sector cannot do the whole job that government or the welfare state have done, but it can do a lot, particularly by pioneering flexible new approaches to old problems. There needs to be a new appreciation of what is needed if a greater degree of civic responsibility is to be restored to the nation.
Another condition is that without surrendering their independence or variety, which are both vital characteristic marks of their existence, in my view the voluntary bodies need to pull together more effectively than they often do, not to speak with one voice, but to speak more nearly with one voice on certain questions than they have often been able to do. Partnership is needed within the sector as well as between voluntary bodies, local authorities and government organisations. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle rightly spoke of the importance of partnership. All I am saying is that partnership needs to come from within the sector as well as from outside it. There is a need for more co-operation at all levels, wherever it is appropriate and wherever different voluntary bodies gather together to pursue a common purpose.
Perhaps I may give three short examples of what I mean. The first field I draw on is health. I believe that one of the most remarkable developments of the past 25 years as regards organisation is the growth and development of self-help bodies. The College of Health estimated not so long ago that there are at least 1,500 national self-help bodies, many of them with local branches. They depend almost entirely on volunteers.

331
It is estimated that there are 2 million members of those self-help bodies. They are beginning to show more willingness to co-operate between themselves. For instance, the Neurological Alliance consists of 22 self-help groups such as the Multiple Sclerosis Society, the Parkinsons Disease Society, the British Epilepsy Association, the Stroke Association, the Huntington's Disease Association, the Dystonia Society and many others. They have come together to work in some ways more effectively than they have done before for improved care, particularly for the carers of people with disabilities or with chronic illnesses. They have set out to influence policy-making and they have already made their influence felt. They have considered how they can raise even more money than the large sums which they have already raised in order to carry out research into neurological diseases generally.
The second field that I draw on is that of employment generation. The Wise Group has an outstanding reputation for what it has done to create new employment opportunities for young people. Having started in Glasgow, it is now extending its sphere of operations to what it calls "social franchising" by bringing in other bodies and new ventures in many other parts of the country. In many ways it is brilliant and is answering, in its own pioneering way, one of the great social needs of the time in providing more employment for young people.
The third field is housing. There is a new body called "People for Action" which has gathered together a national network of 30 or so housing associations, which are considering together how they can add to their own function of housing other functions that will be useful to those who live in their different housing schemes. There is a willingness to consider new roles for housing associations. That new consortium-type body is leading the way. I notice that I have just about come to the end of my allotted time, so I thank your Lordships for listening.
7.50 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too should declare a number of interests although I am conscious that they are undoubtedly far fewer than those of many other noble Lords—and certainly of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, to whose maiden speech we listened with considerable interest. The noble Baroness is clearly a doer as well as a very effective speaker.
The role of the voluntary sector in society and in the lives of individuals is many faceted. Perhaps it has facets about which we may be more aware at the end of the debate than we were at the beginning. The subject certainly raises major issues both of philosophy and of practicality. The issue of personal satisfaction and of the legitimacy of gaining satisfaction from playing a part was raised by, among others, the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, who referred to a sense of public service. In a newspaper article today on the Budget, my noble friend Lord Russell referred to altruism as another sort of feel-good factor. I liked that analogy.
332
It occurred to me that there is quite a stark comparison to be drawn between the voluntary sector and politics with regard to the way in which the two draw, or fail to draw, people into their midst. Politics is characterised by a loss of faith. Today there is a general loss of faith in institutions, and there is certainly a loss of faith in the political process. Alongside that, there is increasing interest among members of the public in single issues rather than in a range of issues which is what party politics, and politics in the broadest sense, encompass. There is also the satisfaction of being hands-on. Perhaps this is not the Chamber in which to say that politics has a tendency to become something of a "talk" rather than a "do", but it does. One understands the satisfaction to be gained from being involved, as the right reverend Prelate put it, as either the "big boots" or the "short shoestring" of real action.
Trustees are among volunteers, but increasingly the staff of voluntary organisations are professionals. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to the need to ensure that the standing of professional staff in the voluntary sector is recognised. Perhaps more could be done by way of secondment between the voluntary sector and the public sector than we have seen, but I must say that my experience from local government is that secondment between central and local government runs along the lines that central government is delighted to take in assistance from local government, but that not much happens the other way. Staff are certainly required to have professional skills even if sometimes their remuneration is practically invisible. The issue of their standing was brought home to me recently when the head of the paid staff of an organisation with which I am concerned raised with me the question of her title and suggested that she should be referred to as the "chief executive officer"; that being a more appropriate term these days than "director".
My noble friend Lord Dahrendorf described the working of trustee bodies by saying that they can be idiosyncratic, amateurish and prone to making mistakes. My noble friend described it as "creative chaos". I doubt whether I shall be the only one among your Lordships to identify with that description. However, trustees too are required to be professionals—in the same way as are school governors. They have a range of skills which can usefully be used and which are often sought out. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, referred to the leanness of many organisations; I can testify to that.
One area in which trustees are now required to be involved is fund-raising. I am not referring only to going out with a collecting box, because a very sophisticated level of fund-raising, of networking, is now required among those who, in a trustee capacity, are able to dispense considerable sums of money. The whole question of funding and of the funder being entitled to call the tune requires considerable debate, not least because the trustees of a number of major charitable foundations are not required to account publicly, as would be required of a sector of government. I do not make any accusations in suggesting that their workings are not transparent, but I think that it is a matter of fact that frequently they are not. That makes it difficult to debate the balance between funding for special projects

333
and for the core activities of such organisations. I refer to the issue of creating strategies. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young, that we need more cohesion in the voluntary sector. Competition and the aggression of the market are not appropriate to this sector.
Certain disbursements of funds are application-led, if I may put it in that way. A major funder is the National Lottery Charities Board, but other lottery distribution bodies require partnership funding, as do many other funding bodies. As the right reverend Prelate said, the preservation of the spirit of partnership is important. Too often there is an uneven relationship and decisions are skewed by the requirements or ideas of the larger body, the funding body.
I disagree to some extent with my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf who said that he did not get excited about the location of government responsibility for the sector. I am not particularly excited, but I am a bit exercised by it. The balance between ensuring that the ground is covered and not stifling innovation may be affected by where such matters are discussed. Central government is not very good at making the connections. The proposal by the Deakin Commission for a parliamentary committee is worth serious consideration. The Government's response—that Select Committees of another place are the appropriate bodies to undertake such work—seems too easily to reflect the demarcations of Whitehall and thus to lose the opportunity of making the cross-departmental connections which a parliamentary committee might achieve.
I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, about the distortions which are sometimes caused by conflicting policies or by policies which do not lie easily together. I accept that similar issues arise at local level although I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Borne, who said that councillors are not necessarily representative. Indeed they are not—and that is another debate—but at least they are elected, even if only 40 per cent. of the electorate turns out to elect them. I am happy that my electorate has always turned out in rather higher numbers than that. However, even if the percentage is only 40 per cent.—or even only the 20 per cent. that would balance our 65 per cent. in Richmond—the opportunity of an election nevertheless exists.
To give more power to a strong voluntary organisation rather than an elected body—I do not suggest that the noble Lord put it in this way—may lead to the organisation hijacking the matter. However, I agree that to encourage more than a thousand flowers to bloom at local level is of great importance. From personal experience, I testify to frustration in not having the means to encourage that blossoming by applying water and—I hope this will not be misread—fertiliser.
Sometimes the tasks of voluntary organisations that deliver services which are the responsibility of the public sector require more recognition than they get. Recently I have come to realise that the tasks of voluntary organisations in connection with the public sector are even more extensive, in that there are now many extremely authoritative bodies that comment helpfully on the workings of the public sector. The
334
Joseph Rowntree Foundation is a major player in this field. Sometimes, I believe that all politicians should retire and leave it to them.
The balance between service delivery and advocacy—the whole area of campaigning—is another area that requires greater debate. I am aware that the Charity Commission has recently assisted with guidelines that perhaps give greater scope for this. But the role of the Charity Commission as both adviser and regulator is one that causes a degree of conflict in the minds of those who relate to it, although this is not a deliberate act on the part of the commission. It can be confusing to receive advice and find that the regulations conflict slightly with it.
The whole question of the definition of a charity is one on which your Lordships have touched. I accept the comments that have been made in this debate about the need for a better appeal mechanism for those organisations that are refused charitable status. Having worked with the Charity Commission and a number of charities for a period, I have come up against different interpretations of public benefit. Those to whom I have spoken have tended to be helpful but in the long run the help has not been quite as much as was at first thought.
I too recognise the importance of the voluntary sector in our pluralist society and in the lives of individuals. I thank my noble friend for introducing this debate, especially for his call to think big and long term. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has said, I too believe that we should think small.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, we owe a debt of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, for initiating this debate and giving us an opportunity to have a good discussion. He started the proceedings with a very thoughtful contribution. That has characterised the debate. All of the contributions have been very thoughtful, and many have been based on a great deal of personal experience. Perhaps no one can call upon a span of time as long as that of my noble friend Lord Longford, but a great deal of experience has been contributed to the debate. No one has contributed more experience than the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who displayed a sense of commitment and energy in her speech. The people of Leicestershire will be wondering how they can manage without her. I hope that we see a good deal of the noble Baroness in this House, but in saying that I also feel guilty in not knowing how people back home will manage without her. She faces a dilemma in that respect. We shall welcome her contributions based on her personal experience.
I declare a personal interest. Until last year I was director of the Refugee Council, which is quite a large charitable organisation. I am currently a trustee, or on the management committees, of a number of other bodies.
I congratulate the Deakin Commission and the NCVO for the important contribution they have made to a better understanding of the voluntary sector and for pointing to the directions in which the work of the voluntary sector and the various relationships with it can be made

335
more effective. I believe that Professor Deakin has done an excellent job. We must not allow the report to sit on the table collecting dust after a few moments of appreciation. The report must be a guide to action and set the agenda in this area for many years to come.
I also congratulate the Labour Party. For some time it has been active in working with and consulting the voluntary sector. Earlier this year the party produced an excellent report entitled Labour and the Voluntary Sector which set the agenda for partnership in government. That report was steered by my honourable friends Mr. Alun Michael, aided by Ms. Ann Coffey. That was a good contribution. The Labour Party recognises that government does not have the answer to every problem. We believe that government must work in partnership with the private and voluntary sectors for the benefit of the public. The Labour Party takes the voluntary sector very seriously indeed.
I also pay tribute to the Charity Commission, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred. I believe that the commission has improved significantly over the years under the very able leadership of Richard Friess. It has shown an improvement in both its understanding of the voluntary sector and its sensitivity to the various pressures and difficulties which that sector faces. After all, the voluntary sector is very large. Noble Lords have referred to its size and to the hundreds of thousands of people involved as staff, volunteers or individuals serving on management committees. The total income of the voluntary sector is estimated at £15 billion a year, which makes it a significant force in the economy.
The voluntary sector has a number of important characteristics. It is diverse, exciting to work in, and exciting in what it sets out to achieve. It is innovative and often based very firmly in the local community. And it has the ability to respond quickly to new needs. That is not a characteristic shared by central or local government, which tends to respond more slowly. The voluntary sector also involves its clients in the work it does. It has the ability to empower individuals in local communities and, very importantly, uses volunteers both on management committees and to supplement its professional staff. My noble friend Lord Young referred to the need for more training in the voluntary sector. Certainly, volunteers should never be seen as an easy option. They require training and supervision in order that they can give of their best in a context where they feel rewarded for volunteering. That places an additional burden on voluntary organisations to provide training.
Many noble Lords have referred to young people. Many volunteers are themselves young people. Sometimes one tends to knock young people in society. I know from personal experience how young people are incredibly keen to volunteer and to support the efforts of voluntary organisations. That is one positive aspect. Another positive aspect—there are many others that I do not have time to mention—is overseas development where voluntary organisations have played a leading part in helping and supporting development and providing crisis relief in many poor countries of the world. It is a great tribute to this country that our voluntary organisations in the overseas development
336
field are held in high regard throughout the world. The last group I mention is the voluntary organisations that work with and comprise ethnic minorities. I was directly involved with many refugee community organisations when I was with the Refugee Council. I was always impressed by the way in which those organisations provided superb support in their own languages for people who came to this country to seek safety from persecution abroad.
Emphatically, the voluntary section is not, and must not be seen to be, a cheap option to get things done. There is a tendency to say that voluntary organisations can do something cheaply, and so forth. I agree that normally voluntary organisations are very cost-effective. Many of them are very professional in their approach. They provide an effective combination of professional paid staff and volunteers. But, please, let no one say that they are somehow a cheap way of doing things. That insults the professionalism of voluntary organisations and belittles them. They have the right to be treated with respect for the capable work they do.
We have had the Government's response to the Deakin Report for about a week. I enjoyed the photograph of the Secretary of State with a lot of children and balloons in the air. To see smiling Secretaries of State, one would think that the Government were changing. Perhaps when the Government respond to Select Committee reports we can have similar photographs. It is a pity that the response was not as enthusiastic as the delightful photographs of the schoolchildren and the Secretary of State, all smiling. The response was enthusiastic in parts but where the Government were asked specific questions they did not show the sort of response that they perhaps should have done.
Let me turn to links between the Government and the voluntary sector. I appreciate that some of the responsibility has now moved from the Home Office to the DNH. Let us examine the DNH. It does not help to argue the point but we need a more firmly based sense of what the relationship is about. I believe emphatically that the role of government should be to enable and encourage rather than to insist and direct.
The Government have a part to play. Of course they have a good start. I do not have direct experience of the voluntary and community division of the DNH, but I worked closely for some years with its predecessor body, the VSU at the Home Office. That body was excellent. It consisted of officials who understood the voluntary sector and who were sensitive to it. Not that I did not have many disagreements with them; I did. But they were healthy disagreements, based upon an understanding of what both sides were about. I have to make the assumption that those good qualities from the VSU are now in the VCD of the DNH.
It is a pity that there is so much knowledge and experience in one part of the Civil Service while other government departments do not have it or do not seem to display it. I should like the VCD to take a more positive lead and to be given the authority to take that lead across Whitehall in setting the basis for the Government-voluntary sector relationship. I am sorry

337
that the Government rejected the Deakin proposals for a concordat. I do not like the word, but they have rejected the proposal for an arrangement which could make a positive contribution to relationships and towards setting the context in which that relationship could flourish.
There is, of course, a ministerial group. It is called the Ministerial Group on Volunteering and the Voluntary Sector (MGVVS). In the Government's response to the Deakin Report, that group is referred to. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us who attends its meetings, what is discussed, and what has emerged that is positive.
The next key point to which I wish to refer is the freedom to campaign. Voluntary organisations suffer from constraints because of case law. The Charity Commission has tried to make things better, and it has gone as far as possible. Voluntary organisations should be able to campaign to advocate the cause of their own clients, because they have more experience than anyone else in the country in that area. I know that from my experience at the Refugee Council. For example, take an organisation such as the Alzheimer's Society. Who can better advocate the cause of people suffering from Alzheimer's disease than those people in the Alzheimer's Society who know what it is about. They speak with strength. I should like to see the legal and political context relaxed so that organisations in the voluntary sector can campaign more than they are allowed to do at the moment. There are too many constraints.
Equally, funders must recognise the independence of voluntary organisations. I can give an example of the Refugee Council. We were receiving money for a training project from a TEC. We were told that we had a 48 per cent. cut in our money three days after the financial year to which that money referred had begun. That put us in an impossible position. It did not enable us to function at all well. There are points about funding to which I shall refer in a moment.
I welcome the fact that my noble friend Lord Borrie referred to the importance of the relationship between local government and the voluntary organisations. Many voluntary organisations are locally based in particular communities. The point applies also to the NHS, quangos, TECs and other bodies. I note that the National Lottery Charities Board has got off to a reasonably good start, has resisted political pressure, and has supported real, grassroots organisations. It may need to be made more accountable. A colleague of mine in another place, Dr. Cunningham, has a committee which is looking at the whole work of the National Lottery and its impact on the voluntary sector.
I turn quickly to the subject of a Select Committee. I am sorry that the Government responded somewhat unhelpfully. The point is not the relationship between one department, the DNH, and the voluntary sector, important though that is. The point is that many government departments have such relationships and encourage such relationships. That is why a departmental Select Committee of the other place is not the answer. We want a broad ranging Select Committee
338
which can cover the overall relationships between government departments and voluntary organisations and look further at the implementation of the Deakin Report. I suggest either a Select Committee of this House sitting possibly for one year to see how it operates, or a joint committee between this House and the other place. We can do more in that respect. I regret the Government's somewhat tepid response.
The idea of a voluntary sector law commission is worth pursuing. Again, the Government were not very responsive. I should like to know whether the Charity Commission and the Law Commission were consulted before the Government, as it were, said, "We are not interested in this idea".
In conclusion, the Government have increased the tax burden on charities over the years, particularly through VAT. Whereas I do not believe that any party can make promises about what might happen when there is a change of government, what we need is a government who will have a greater level of commitment to the voluntary sector than we have seen from the Conservatives over recent years. I sincerely hope that after the next election there will be a change of government and that the voluntary sector will have the support from the centre which it deserves.
8.17 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, I know that we are all most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, for initiating this debate which is so important, focusing as it does on the voluntary and charitable sectors which play such a significant part in contemporary Britain. A number of those sectors have been described in interesting detail. His opening remarks, which got the debate off to such a good start, come with the authority and expertise that one would expect of the chairman of the Council for Charitable Support.
I should like also to join others who have complimented my noble friend Lady Byford on making such a worthwhile contribution to the debate in her maiden speech. We all know that she has considerable experience in this area, not just in Leicestershire but with the Womens' Royal Voluntary Services. She has drawn on that experience to good effect. I, and I am sure all your Lordships, look forward to many further contributions from her on future occasions.
Quite rightly, all the speakers have highlighted the important contribution which voluntary organisations and volunteers make to individuals' well being and to the wider health of society as a whole. Effective voluntary organisations channel the energies of individuals to help themselves and others imaginatively to meet people's need to contribute to society. They encourage individual and community responsibility, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, pointed out, thus building stronger communities and a stronger society, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle showed us with some of his examples from Northumbria. Moreover, the organisations can engage the skills and

339
enthusiasm of our citizens in an age of greater leisure and earlier retirement, and enable people to put something back into society.
We believe firmly in the value of voluntary organisations, and have a set of policies to support and encourage effective and accountable activity by them. The transfer to the DNH of responsibility for volunteering, voluntary organisations and community development, together with the excellent civil servants to whom the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred, fits well with the department's other responsibilities for the arts, sports, museums, libraries and the built heritage, all of which aim to enrich people's lives and make a difference in communities.
The Secretary of State takes a close interest in such matters and herself chairs the Ministerial Group on Volunteering and the Voluntary Sector to which Ministers from all Whitehall departments are invited. Many attend but sometimes senior officials attend when Ministers cannot. That group agreed the response to the Deakin Commission, Raising the Voltage, to which reference has been made. The group encourages constructive working relationships between government departments and voluntary organisations. We aim to bring forward programmes in the department to support volunteering and community development and to support the infrastructure of the voluntary sector.
I was most intrigued to learn from my noble kinsman Lord Longford, himself a notable supporter of voluntary work who has never been afraid to support causes that he believes are right even if they do not command popular support, that he spoke in a similar debate in 1949, nearly 50 years ago, and as Minister, standing where I do now and before I was born, quoted Herbert Morrison, who said:
"Voluntary action is the lifeblood of democracy. Without voluntary action democracy loses its soul".
I do not imagine that I would agree with everything that Herbert Morrison said or did but I have no problem concurring with that sentiment.
That point was made in a different but perhaps more personal way by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, describing how he looked at our country with the eyes of an outsider, but with eyes of someone who wanted to join us. My noble kinsman Lord Longford also mentioned three particular charities with which he is involved; the Matthew Trust, the New Bridge Trust and the New Horizon Youth Centre. I do not know of them personally but I have no doubt that they are examples of the kind of organisation which we hope to see thrive in their respective activities.
There has been a certain amount of debate about money. In 1994-95 total central government funding for voluntary organisations, for a huge variety of purposes amounted to £3.4 billion and charities also received tax relief to the total of £1.7 billion. It is the case that if the rate of income tax is reduced that may have a direct consequence on reducing the amount of income which charities receive. However, one must also look at the effect of reducing the income tax rate on stimulating a further generation of wealth, which in turn helps towards paying for the charities.
340
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, emphasised the importance of a sound economic foundation for voluntary organisations, without which they cannot deliver their services. It is worth noting that of the £595 million of grants from central government paid directly to voluntary organisations in 1994-95, 28 per cent. was for core funding and a further 4 per cent. was for capital expenditure. It is right and important that government departments secure value for the money that they make available to voluntary organisations. But while that may look like a fee for services, those services cannot be delivered unless the funding allows them to be soundly based financially and to pay for their proper overheads.
Reference has been made to the National Lottery. Its introduction has given charities and voluntary organisations an unprecedented source of new funding for projects and initiatives across a wide range of activities. The lottery has been successful in generating sufficient new money to make a positive difference to the work of organisations such as the Citizens Advice Bureaux, providing real help and advice for people in need. Your Lordships will remember that this House debated the National Lottery one week ago.
National Lottery funds have been awarded to more than 10,000 organisations, most of which have been either charities or voluntary organisations. Of the £2.7 billion available, more than £2.4 billion has been awarded to good causes. The National Lottery Charities Board, whose work was valued highly by the Deakin Commission, has made more than 4,000 of these awards, many of which have gone to smaller charities and voluntary organisations.
I welcome the launch earlier today by the National Lottery Charities Board of its fourth grants round. The board's theme for this round is to increase opportunities for people and extend choices by promoting learning throughout life. The board has stated that it will especially welcome bids from groups which encourage people, particularly the young, to volunteer. It will also fund projects extending learning opportunities to disadvantaged groups and projects which promote self-help, community regeneration and enterprise through learning opportunities.
The National Lotteries Charity Board also aims to fund development and support services for voluntary organisations in order to make voluntary and community groups more efficient and effective. In announcing the board's latest grant fund the board's chairman, David Sieff, said that in supporting projects which increase opportunities and which help voluntary and community groups achieve more, the board hope that its grant will have a significant impact on disadvantaged communities. The Secretary of State and I wholeheartedly support the board's clear intention to help the voluntary sector both through helping the sector itself to develop and through improving people's opportunity to be involved in the sector through volunteering.
Throughout the debate, reference has been made to the report of the commission on the future of the voluntary sector in England, published by the National

341
Council for Voluntary Organisations and chaired by Professor Nicholas Deakin. Its report, published last July, was a thoughtful, considered document which made a number of recommendations to government and others with an interest in voluntary organisations. The Government were pleased to publish a detailed response, Raising the Voltage, on 12th November. I wish to point out in particular our response to recommendations 28 and 29 of the Deakin Report which referred to the relationship between the voluntary organisations and local government. That important point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I refer to the issue touched on by a number of speakers; the possibility of some particular parliamentary committee looking into the sector. It is usual for such select committees to be set up along departmental lines. That must, in the first instance, be a matter for Parliament and in the other place for the National Heritage Select Committee. There is much in the report that the Department of National Heritage and the Government generally are already doing. For example, the commission urged the DNH to "raise the voltage" on voluntary sector interests within government at all levels. We have already started to do this by discussing the report of the Deakin Commission at the Ministerial Group on Volunteering and the Voluntary Sector. One of the first things that we have decided to do is to revise and update the Think Voluntary leaflet, first issued by the Home Office Voluntary Services Unit in 1993. It is intended to raise awareness of voluntary sector issues within other Government departments.
The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, recognised the importance of trying to ensure the best practicable working relationships between the Government, be it national or central and voluntary organisations. Much can be achieved by representatives of both sides discussing relevant issues and writing down some principles of good practice. We intend to undertake this work in partnership with representatives of voluntary organisations and I believe that useful progress will be made. However, the Government agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that the term "concordat", proposed by the Deakin Commission, implies too rigid a framework, not least because by definition the voluntary sector is always in a state of some flux and does not lend itself to defined modes of representation.
As has been mentioned, the Deakin Commission recommended that the definition of charities should be reformed, with a single definition based on a new concept of public benefit rather than the existing definitions which go back 400 years. It did not suggest a specific new formulation but recommended extensive public debate.
In exercising its responsibilities, the Charity Commission has begun to review more actively whether bodies currently on the register actually meet the requirements of charitable law. In the light of the monitoring requirements of the Charities Act 1993, the Charity Commission will next year introduce an IT-based register, which will enable a more systematic and thorough review of the register. This work is immensely significant. It will be the first complete
342
review of the register. It is an excellent opportunity for the Charity Commission to use all its expertise to consider the scope of charity in the light of today's society and expectations.
The Charity Commission is committed to stimulating public discussion on this issue. It knows that its powers to change things are limited and it will work within those powers. But once this systematic analysis is complete, we will all have an opportunity to consider whether further changes are necessary. Of course, it is not a one-way process and the Charity Commission will also be looking at purposes that are currently not charitable, where your Lordships, I or the wider public might think they should be. I look forward to seeing the results of this work as it emerges. Those in the charitable sector and outside will have every opportunity to contribute.
We recognise, too, that voluntary organisations are by definition independent. That must of course mean that they are free to conduct their affairs as they see fit, subject to the rule of law. While the Government rightly insist that funding given for a specific purpose is used for that purpose, they also recognise the important role of voluntary organisations in advocacy for the interests that they represent.
But there is a difference between charitable status and the ability to campaign widely—perhaps indiscriminately—however worthy the cause they may be advocating. The Charity Commission has issued helpful guidelines which clarify how far a charity may become involved in political campaigning.
The report by the commission on the future of the voluntary sector touched only on volunteering. However, a number of speakers this evening—not least of all the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—emphasised its importance. Volunteering can be of immense value both to the volunteers themselves and the communities to which they contribute. Volunteers often discover that they have a great deal to offer to those communities, and this can foster a real sense of identity and community pride.
The value of volunteering has been promoted since 1994 through the Government's Make a Difference initiative which brings together the voluntary organisations, the public sector and the business world. As part of that initiative the Secretary of State recently launched grants programmes worth £3 million to ensure that it is straightforward for everyone to get involved. The grants will widen and strengthen the volunteer bureau network so that there will be a centre in every locality ready to match potential volunteers with worthwhile volunteering opportunities.
The Government are particularly keen to make opportunities available to the young and have pledged that by the end of 1997 every young person who wants to will have the opportunity to volunteer. A comprehensive action plan will be announced which will make that pledge a reality and enable our young people to make a positive contribution to their communities.

343
As we have seen, volunteering has a strong tradition in our country. Many of those involved in community activity do not see themselves as volunteers. For example, do parents involved with parent/toddler groups, those who coach in sports activities—did my noble friend Lady Byford see herself self-consciously as a volunteer when she took up tennis coaching?—or those who organise tenants' associations see themselves as volunteers? I doubt it. But their contribution to the quality of life of communities through their activities is considerable and beneficial.
The Department of National Heritage invests well over £1 million each year in organisations which promote, support and develop work in communities. I refer of course to organisations such as the Community Development Foundation, the Standing Conference on Community Development and Community Matters. In addition, grants made by bodies such as the Sports and Arts Councils also significantly contribute to improving the quality of life.
The Secretary of State for National Heritage has made a firm commitment to help communities help themselves. She has launched two new programmes worth a total of half a million pounds to benefit small groups by helping them to co-operate and learn from each other. These will be the sort of groups I have just mentioned—volunteer-run, generally with no paid staff and having a turnover of less than £10,000 a year. Such groups often feel isolated—I am sure that your Lordships know that—and they have a need for information or practical help of some sort. They do not always have access to appropriate training.
This may contrast with other groups that may already have that particular information and expertise. Grants will be made available to enable 1,400 visits between groups so that they can swap information, skills and ideas—helping them help themselves, and helping them to form the basis of a relationship which we hope will last well beyond the period of grant. The other programme will provide grants to larger organisations which can deliver training or target information to small groups.
A consultative conference will be held in London in December. This will enable people active in local groups, as well as representatives from larger organisations, local and national government, to consider how government and others can best support community development.
I was pleased to see that the Deakin Commission addressed a number of its recommendations to the corporate sector. I would like to emphasise the importance of private sector involvement in volunteering and the work of voluntary organisations. Many businesses and employers already give significant support to voluntary organisations and volunteering. Our aim is to encourage that involvement further. In this case our role is to provide a suitable framework for partnership and to encourage them where possible and appropriate. For example, the department provides financial support to Business in the
344
Community, which plays an important role in promoting the value of business involvement and in helping business leaders to plan practical action.
Business in the Community has also helped employers to see the advantage to themselves of development of staff skills and morale through individual and team involvement in the community, a point that was also clearly made in the Deakin Commission report. Links between companies and voluntary organisations cannot be emphasised too much. It benefits both parties.
As I draw to my conclusion, I would once again like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, for initiating a debate on such an important topic I thank all your Lordships who have spoken during the debate and who have contributed to a very worthwhile discussion.
Although we have now published the government's response to the Deakin Commission report, this is really the beginning and not the end of the process. There is much work to be done in continuing to "raise the voltage" on these issues, in publicly clarifying the principle that should underpin government relationships with voluntary organisations, in developing best practice in this area and in considering, when they are available, the findings of the Charity Commission's systematic review of the register. While that is continuing we shall continue to promote volunteering through the Make a Difference initiative, to encourage private sector involvement in voluntary activity and to make grants to a huge variety of voluntary organisations whose work contributes to the achievements of government and society's objectives.
I recall my noble kinsman's comments about his noble friend—my noble friend Lord Addison's grandfather. I must keep in mind the advice he received. I shall not go on longer, save to say on behalf of the Government that we believe that voluntary and charitable activities make an incalculable and unique contribution to individual and social well being. The Government are committed to supporting and encouraging them. We can and shall do so.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, it remains for me to thank all those who have spoken in and contributed to what was a thoughtful debate. It has been one which augers well for the future of the voluntary sector. I should like to offer a special word of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, whose combination of personal experience and thoughtfulness was quite remarkable and perhaps characteristic of the best in this debate.
It is not for me, in this final minute or two, to go over the ground again. I am taking away three particular strands of general argument. One is that much of what happens in the voluntary sector is quite closely related to what happens in local communities. I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, mentioned the non-governmental organisations for voluntary activities in the international field. They, among several other important organisations, illustrate what can be done by voluntary activity.

345
The second important strand I noted is the one which the right reverend Prelate put so well when he talked about keeping society together. That will have to start where people form communities on the ground. It is not something which can be done by legislation or by government as such.
The third strand is the values which represent the work in the voluntary sector—values of service, values of civic responsibilities, values of altruism. However, make no mistake, those who work in the voluntary sector derive great satisfaction from so doing. Those in the voluntary sector are sometimes liable to complain that they do not receive enough recognition. I often feel that this is an area of activity and life where satisfaction lies in the activity itself. I know that many who are active in this world feel that way. Recognition does not need to be recognition by government.
What we have heard will give us many opportunities further to advance the case of the voluntary sector. It is crucial. When the noble Earl, Lord Longford, spoke about discussions nearly 50 years ago, I thought he was going to refer to Lord Beveridge, who, after his other reports and after inventing the welfare state, turned his attention very much to the voluntary sector and the need for the voluntary sector. That is as true today as it was then.
We need a thriving economy. We need a public sector which, as the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, said, does things which are properly within the realms of state activity. But, in the end, what keeps our society together is the activity of many millions of individuals which is based on their own motives, interests and sets of objectives, and the many little and larger associations formed around that. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, would allow me to intervene briefly because there is an inadvertent error to the list of speakers. That shows that my noble friend Lord Carter is to wind up for the Labour Benches in the following debate. Your Lordships will see that my noble friend Lady Hayman is not my noble friend Lord Carter and, equally, that my noble friend Lord Carter is not my noble friend Lady Hayman. The error is entirely mine and I should like to apologise to the House for it.

Community Care
8.41 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that their policy of community care is providing satisfactory care for people suffering from mental handicap and learning disabilities.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to raise issues concerning the care of people with learning disabilities or mental handicap. I am particularly grateful to all noble Lords who are to
346
contribute to the debate because their concern and expertise will be valued deeply by all who experience the problems we shall be addressing.
I begin by declaring an interest and clarifying my terminology. My interest is that I am a patron of ResCare, an organisation set up and run by families caring for relatives with mental handicap. As regards my terminology, members of ResCare who have intimate experience of these issues prefer the term "mental handicap" to the term "learning disabilities" which they see as trivialising the multiple problems often experienced by their relatives. Therefore, at their request, I use the term "mental handicap" and hope that those who prefer the term "learning disabilities" will understand my terminology.
I wish to address three issues: the principles underlying the policy of community care; the quality of care currently provided for people with mental handicap, especially in what is termed the community; and the need for diversity of residential provision with particular reference to the option of village communities.
I begin by recognising that all was not ideal in the past. The shortcomings of the old long-stay hospitals for the mentally handicapped, however humanely they were run, were graphically exposed by a flood of studies from the 1950s onwards such as Goffman's classic book Asylums. That deluge of criticism led to a swing away from care in hospital type environments to care in the community, usually in small homes in urban or suburban areas.
That policy has been successful for many of the former patients of hospitals for the mentally handicapped. Many have found the opportunity to realise their potential in new ways. Many have enjoyed enhanced independence and the dignity associated with a more normal life within the wider community. I have received hospitality in such homes and rejoiced to see the fulfilment in the lives of their residents. For those people, the policy of community care has been a great success. I am sure that none of us would wish to put back the clock or be stinting in our appreciation of all that has been achieved.
But we should not be having this debate this evening if that were the whole story. The policy of community care has not been so happy for everyone, and it is incumbent on us to take seriously the plight of those who are suffering as a result of current policy. Many mentally handicapped people are not being provided for adequately in the community and many families of mentally handicapped people looking after relatives at home are deeply concerned about what will happen to their loved ones when they can no longer care for them.
The concept of community care implies that there is a community which cares. But the reality is that the community can be a very lonely place. Living in a small, three or four bedroomed house can make the person feel cabined, cribbed and confined compared with the more independent movement possible in the more spacious and sheltered grounds of a larger scale residential community.

347
Moreover, many of the earlier groups of people discharged into the community were those best able to adjust to greater independence. As the more severely and often multiply handicapped are discharged, it is more difficult to cater for the greater complexity of their needs and there is a growing catalogue of tragic cases where the care provided has been so inappropriate that suffering has resulted.
I am not extrapolating from a few isolated examples to build a wholesale attack on community care. But we ignore the failures of policy at our peril or, more important, at the peril of those affected by the policy. The peril is very real. Some residents in community homes have died as a result of inadequate care or inappropriate implementation of the policy of so-called normalisation.
Three examples must suffice. Recently, in a home run by social services in Stockport, a man choked to death on food. He was the third man to die in such a way in Stockport in the past two years. It is reported that the coroner expressed criticism of the policy of having only one carer to look after six mentally handicapped people.
Secondly, a young man had been moved from a campus hospital to a small house. On the basis of freedom and risk taking, he was allowed freedom of movement, despite his known lack of traffic sense. He was killed within three weeks.
Thirdly, people with epilepsy have drowned in the bath in community homes, having been left alone by relatively untrained staff inappropriately trying to encourage normalisation of lifestyle.
The list is growing but the catalogue of concern is not limited to individual cases. A report in August by the Royal College of Psychiatrists reflects those concerns in its claim that there is a crisis in community care for people suffering from mental illness and mental handicap.
Research undertaken by Dr. Lorna Wing of the Medical Research Council documents events over a year during the closure of Darenth Park Hospital. She found that the experience of the move was positive for about one-third of the ex-residents but another third were deemed to have suffered a deterioration in the quality of life. One of her conclusions, widely ignored, was:
"For many in this group with moderate or severe learning difficulties, sheltered communities would offer more opportunities for an interesting life than a small house in an ordinary street".
Therefore, it is not surprising that many families with mentally handicapped relatives are acutely anxious about current community care policy and are pleading for the development of a diversity of provision, including residential or village communities, in associated or satellite homes in the community.
It was against that background that last year my noble friend Lord Pearson and I brought out a publication with a foreword by my noble friend Lord Renton entitled Made to Care: The Case for Residential and Village Communities for People with a Mental Handicap. That stimulated the Department of Health to set up inquiries which have resulted in two interim reports—a mainly literature review by Professors Eric Emerson,
348
Chris Cullen and others and a study into the costs of village communities published by the Department of Health with the University of Kent's Personal Social Services Research Unit. Neither study has undermined our case for village communities. However, there is reinforcement of the concern which we have expressed as regards the shortfall of accommodation for people with mental handicaps.
It is estimated that there is a current gap between supply and demand of between 20,000 and 25,000 places. To bridge that gap would require a 40 per cent. increase in accommodation. Those figures do not even begin to take into account increase in demand over the next two decades. Meanwhile the total number of residential places has been substantially reduced as hospital places are closed more quickly than alternatives are created.
Therefore, my first specific question for my noble friend is to ask what the Government are doing to bridge that gap to meet the current needs for accommodation and to anticipate the expansion of demand in the years ahead.
I move very briefly to my third theme; namely, the desirability of diversity of provision with reference to the case for village communities. I welcome the statement by the Department of Health in 1995 which reaffirms that services should take account of:
"a variety of factors, including the views of individuals, families and professionals".
That commitment is fine but the reality is often at variance with commitment. The views of individual families are too frequently ignored. The views of professionals too often reflect an entrenched ideology bitterly opposed to the concept of residential or village communities. That opposition too often overrides the desires and requests of those most intimately involved—the families with profoundly handicapped relatives. A book published earlier this year called Bound to Care is an anthology of their experiences. A ResCare survey found that 50 per cent. of families with mentally handicapped relatives want village or residential communities as an option. But despite that, not one local authority has allowed a village community to evolve.
Therefore I ask, will the Government stop the closure of the remaining hospitals and encourage the establishment of village communities as pilot projects? I refer, for example, to a new development on the unsold site of Offerton House in Stockport, where day services are still in place, and to the evolution of the existing St. Ebba's Hospital in Epsom into a village, as wanted by many families.
I conclude by urging the case for village communities. It rests on the evidence of existing communities in the voluntary, independent sector, such as Ravenswood Village, the Camphill communities, and Brookvale in the UK, and comparable communities in the Netherlands. I ask my noble friend specifically if she will please give urgent priority to the development of village communities as one option in the care of mentally handicapped people, and if she will authorise at least some pilot projects on some existing hospital sites before it is too late? Can she reassure all concerned

349
that the Government will turn their principles into policies, their commitments into reality, and do everything to ensure that there is available the kind of care which is described so vividly and so poignantly in the brief poem by Beryl Drummond, quoted in the book Bound to Care which states:
"For Rachel:
Build me a world, where I can be free Free to be myself.
Build me a world, where I can be safe Free from exploitation,
Build me a world, where I can work I need my independence,
Build me a world, with specially trained people Who understand my needs,
Build me a world. where I'll feel secure I'm sure I have the right,
Build me a world
Don't force me into yours".
8.51 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I wish to express my appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for initiating this debate which gives me the opportunity, with the indulgence of the House, to raise the need for community care of a group of people with learning difficulties who fall outside the general criteria. They are not mentally handicapped, nor are they necessarily elderly. I refer to those people who, as a result of a stroke or accidental injury to the brain, are left with damage to the language centre of the brain and who suffer as a consequence from dysphasia. I declare an interest as a vice president of Action for Dysphasic Adults.
It is estimated that there are more than 200,000 people with dysphasia in the UK at any one time. Dysphasia is an invisible and serious disorder of language where the intellect remains intact and the thought processes are normal but the person loses the ability to use language. It can affect many aspects of communication, including speech, writing, reading, memory, gesture, concentration and understanding of the spoken word. It can vary in severity and can change over time.
Dysphasia can isolate the sufferer to a degree almost unimaginable to the rest of us. One sufferer described the experience as being,
"locked inside my own head".
But because of its complexity and the multiplicity of the impairment, it is little understood by doctors, social workers and providers of services in the community.
It should be a joy to return home from hospital, but for a person who is dysphasic that joy can often be short lived as they are confronted with the every-day reality of their limitations, together with reminders of what they have lost. Many experience fear and uncertainty and require instant support and understanding, because for dysphasic people the very tools needed for finding, understanding and using information are damaged. This means that information needs to be brought to the dysphasic person's attention rather than the reverse.
In some cases there is a seamless transition from hospital to home. Social workers and community based services efficiently address the needs of these people, organising claims for benefits, implementing support
350
from therapists and providing household aids and appliances. For others, discharge from hospital can mean the end of any provision, either because none is available in the community or the patient is not informed of the support that may be available. That support varies greatly throughout the country. One has to examine why that might be the case. Sometimes it is a case of a lack of resources; often it is determined by the severity of the impairment; in part it is determined by local policy and, as I said, availability of resources; and in part by the quality and accessibility of information.
While there are case studies that identify good practice—which is as it should be—there are far too many illustrations of people waiting months for any form of therapy, of benefits and entitlements that are never arranged as promised, of complete cessation of services without notice, of social workers not turning up or answering the telephone, and of patronising doctors and officials being rushed and irritated at the dsyphasic person's inability to express himself or herself.
It is true that many non-dsyphasic people experience similar problems with health, social and other services. However, people who have a communication impairment are particularly vulnerable when negotiating provision for their needs. Because of the invisibility of their impairment, its nature and effects are not understood and the vulnerability of those struggling to communicate is not perceived. This often means that they go without community services which would be most useful to them. Equally, if they receive services which are not satisfactory they do not have the ability to object.
Whatever the severity of the impairment, basic support services are essential; first, a GP or social worker who understands the problem. It is also essential to have advice from a welfare rights officer on weaving one's way through the complexities of the benefit system, and a community team of therapists—a physiotherapist, if one is physically impaired, an occupational therapist to develop independence, and a speech and language therapist. Their expert help and guidance is the most crucial factor in aiding recovery.
The isolation, confusion and perceived lack of a future is often accompanied by severe distress and depression, but there is a dire shortage of counsellors. The speech and language therapist may assist, but it is usually the unqualified carer, member of the family or friend who takes on that responsibility. That is far from satisfactory.
All the analysis of need shows that it is not only availability of services within the community which is important to a dysphasic sufferer. There also has to be a greater understanding by those providing the service. Services need to be accessible and must be appropriate and adequate. They must be promptly delivered, reliable and consistent, and relevant to the needs of the individual. When information is given, it should be simple to understand and frequently repeated.
In the light of the particular requirements of a dysphasic sufferer, I ask the Minister whether any studies have been carried out by her department into the

351
needs of this group of people who suffer from such severe learning difficulties, whether any specific advice has been given to health trusts and local authorities and, if so, whether there has been any monitoring of provision. I close with the words of a dysphasic adult who had been let down by his community based healthcare providers and who said,
"I want to bang their heads together. I want to fight for my therapy".
9 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for providing us with an opportunity to discuss this important subject. There will be general agreement among us, and in the country at large, that the achievements of the past 10 years or so have been very considerable and that there can be no going back. Those who know most about work in this field tell of the way in which many people formerly in institutional care have blossomed and thrived. But time presses and I wish to touch on three specific matters.
First, I have the impression that for obvious reasons much of the thrust of community care has been focused on closing down hospitals. As a consequence, those who live with their families have been a low priority. Those who were moved out of hospitals brought with them a dowry. Money saved in the hospitals was made available to make provision in the community. Local authorities, and others responsible, face real difficulty in making full and proper provision for those who have never been in hospital. That group, which includes most of the younger people with learning difficulties, has complex needs. Much will depend on good information and diagnosis at the outset, good planning at the critical age of 13 to 15 years, awareness of their diversity of need, and willingness to help them into whatever training, work or social activities may be appropriate. All who work in this field underline the importance of strong support and respite care for the parents and families of those with learning difficulties who have stayed at home and have been cherished there. In other words, the first point is to draw attention to the needs of those who have never been in institutions.
The second point concerns attitudes in wider society. On the whole, the general public believe that those with learning difficulties should not be kept in hospital. But there is still some reluctance to have them as neighbours, I fancy. The local churches can and do play a part here. They are accustomed to caring for people locally and in the setting of a community. Indeed, in the past three or four years there have been presented to me for Confirmation quite a number of adults who had formerly been in hospital. On release to homes in the locality, they have been welcomed into the congregation of their parish church. They have found their feet there and this has helped their integration into wider society. In general the churches are comfortable working with statutory and voluntary services and agencies. In certain areas there have been initiatives promoted by the churches, welcomed by the local authority, practical steps taken to provide work in churches, and awareness training made available for people in churches. In any
352
case, many congregations are involved with voluntary groups which work in this field and regard it as a proper expression of Christian care.
The third point relates quite simply to money. Probably every participant in this debate will come to this point sooner or later, and the day after Budget day may or may not be the best occasion on which to address it. As I have mentioned, local authorities experience particular difficulties in finding or raising money to meet the continuing needs of those who have never been in hospital. Even for those who have been in hospital there is difficulty in providing long-term funding, for, to put it crudely, the original calculations were based on an assumption of rate of turnover which is not being realised as people now live longer.
I am aware that matters of finance are complex and technical and that one would be well advised not to venture far into this field. But I am advised that there are particular difficulties with some of those in community care who fall between invalidity benefits and incapacity benefits, and who may also fail to qualify for jobseeker's allowance. There are also particular difficulties on occasion with regard to housing benefit. In some cases, the administration of the Registered Homes Act 1984 and the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991 are placing unnecessary financial burdens on caring agencies.
My time is up. We are all, I am sure, immensely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for having raised the subject and for having treated it so sympathetically. That in itself will help to raise its public profile, not least in such a way as to make it easier for its financial requirements to receive the attention which they need.
9.5 p.m.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I am no expert on what sort of care is best for those with learning disabilities, but I know something about management and, because my wife takes an interest in a nearby day nursery for children under five with severe learning difficulties, we have for some years been members of a private sector charity, the Westminster Society for People with Learning Difficulties.
Last year the charity appointed a social worker to research over the next five to 10 years the needs of Westminster children with disabilities. The researcher quickly found that that was almost impossible. No common definition of "disability" appeared to exist and thus she could not compile a satisfactory register which would detail each child's ongoing needs.
The Department for Education and Employment is bound by the Education Act 1981 which states that the term "learning difficulties" applies to anyone who cannot access the curriculum for any reason. She also found that taken out of its educational context, and used in conjunction with the word "severe", the phrase "severe learning difficulties" has come to be synonymous with intellectual impairment or learning disabilities.
In health, however, severe medical conditions such as Down's syndrome and cerebral palsy are defined as a disability. Social services, meanwhile, regards the

353
continued use of the old term "mental handicap" as stigmatising those to whom it applies and the term "learning disabilities" is now used. My personal sympathy is with the term used by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. We have three departments with three different definitions.
The researcher also found that in 1989 a world health survey identified as many as 12 distinct types of disability and reported that 64 per cent. of those children aged 5 to 15 with a disability in fact had two or more of the listed types of disability.
The result is that no one really knows whether all the children in Westminster who should be on the list of those types of disability identified by the WHO are in fact listed. The research worker says that the numbers she was able to identify are well below the UK statistical averages which worried her. In that respect, I suggest that the children of Westminster were not well served by the existence of three separate entities—health, education and social services—all with their own specialist but unstandardised procedures and definitions.
It seems to me that those three major public entities can be regarded as three vertical streams in an overall organisation engaged in support for those with disabilities. All organisations need horizontal links and in my example the failure to make such links, and to agree a common definition of the word "disability", actively damages the very people whom education, health and social services are targeted to help.
am not sure how many people working in this area are aware of the recently launched Green Paper, government.direct. It commits government to improve sharply the horizontal links between departments. The idea is that the citizen shall no longer have to fill in the same form several times, once for each different office visited. Entering the address once electronically, using a very friendly touch screen, will make it available to all departments that need it. Incidentally, names and addresses will be the first information to receive such electronic treatment.
Equally, the Green Paper offers the reverse. The citizen is to be able to get all the information needed electronically from a single source regardless of the number of government departments involved. That source could be a touch screen, web pages on the Internet, or a real live person in video conference to the inquirer from a central helpdesk.
The government Green Paper, government.direct, proposes to set up what are known as integrated data bases. That does not prevent education, health and social services, and private sector charities for that matter, obtaining their own individual records on their own data bases. It does, however, require that the data bases talk to each other and thus organise a single integrated set of information that can be passed to the citizen.
Whereas we talk to each other in a very unstructured fashion, computers can only talk to each other in a way that has everything structured and standardised. So we immediately have a problem. There is nothing currently standardised about the word "disability". Before we can enter an integrated data base the people in those four streams will have to agree a common definition.
354
The UK is not in the van of these changes. Many other countries are well ahead of what this country contemplates in government.direct. They include the USA, Canada, Australia, Singapore and Spain. Moreover, the proposals put forward by our Government merely copy the changes that are ongoing in the private sector. Electronic networking allows companies to re-engineer their business processes by reorganising themselves to service their customers better. When they have done so, they cut their own costs, improve their efficiency and have far happier customers. Does the Minister have any plans to do likewise in respect of service to those with learning disabilities?
9.10 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I shall be brief. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for introducing this subject. When I was for a short period on the Front Bench as a shadow health spokesman, some of these issues arose and I have tried to maintain an interest in them ever since.
There are three points to be made. First, as arose from the noble Baroness's presentation and the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, we have a problem of concept. That arises partly as a result of the different climate of thought in the 1950s and 1960s. Then we tried to move away from being too brutal in identifying certain kinds of disability. We have moved on, to the extent that labelling no longer victimises. Labelling is good information. If different kinds of disability are distinct, and require distinct treatments, we should not be afraid to say so.
As the noble Viscount said, some people have multiple disabilities; but there are also mild and severe forms of those disabilities. We have to be bold, and be able to say that there is a range of mildness or severity, and that there can be multiple problems. In our desire to make everything uniform, under a single classification, although we may have the best intentions we are not able to do the best.
I suggest to the Minister, who has a very good record in these matters, that either the Government or some charity should commission a conceptual "think piece" on this very important question. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, pointed out, it was Goffman's work that made us reconsider. We need another Goffman now to think the matter through.
Secondly, I quite recognise that money is scarce. When some of these changes were first being set up we were worried about the strain on local resources. I recognise that the Government have spent more year on year in real terms on the national health. I do not want to engage in a battle over that point. Is the problem that we face a problem of money, or a problem of organisation? It could easily be the case that hospitals are being shut not as a result of lack of money but because we are using the wrong criteria. I have always complained about inner-city hospitals having to bear too much cost, but if it is a matter of organisation, then we could perhaps tackle this problem without too much extra money. That also needs to be carefully thought through.

355
Lastly, and this follows from what I said about the concept, I appeal to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on diversity of treatment. We are all different. Let me give what may seem like a trivial example. Many people believe there is only one dieting formula. I have always believed there are different dieting formulas because we are all very different. In the same way, I believe that we must respect differences if we are to treat people like human beings and with dignity.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Hastings: My Lords, I rise to support the main request of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, to whom I am immensely grateful for raising this vitally important subject. I must declare and explain my interest in this subject. I am a patron of the Camphill Village Trust, and as a result have visited many of its communities in England, Scotland and Wales, and I have been instrumental in getting a Camphill community started on my property in north Norfolk. My wife has been the chairman of the management committee for its first seven years which have, happily, just been completed.
In addition, I have been involved with another, similar organisation which operates in exactly the same way as Camp Hill but without the Rudolph Steiner philosophy and that is called CARE. The organisation approached me for land on my other property in Northumberland which I could not provide, but a suitable location was found. I was then asked to see if I could raise money for the equipment of that community, which the right reverend Prelate will probably be familiar with at Ponteland in Northumberland.
Such is the demand and such is the interest involved in these communities that a six-figure sum was raised purely locally in under 12 months in Northumberland. A very much larger six-figure sum was raised in Norfolk in under two years, with waiting lists, right from the beginning, in both places which still exist. I created a regional, East-Anglian committee—we did not want to be narrow minded in Norfolk—and I had a lot of patrons, several noble Lords, two of whom sit on the opposite Benches. The two patrons of that community are the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.
That is my introduction and my interest. The case history of my Down's Syndrome son, who is now 28, is relevant to this debate and enables me to make a point which I consider to be of prime importance, and to which I shall turn in due course. He was well educated at the Camphill school near Ringwood, as a result of which he writes legibly when he concentrates. He reads everything, he is always up to date with the latest news, his fund of general knowledge perpetually astonishes strangers who meet him and he enjoys the opera, the ballet, musical comedies, concerts and museums. Being somewhat of an historian, he asked to go to see Napoleon's tomb in Paris and where the kings of France lived; so we went. He asked to see the Van Gogh exhibition in Amsterdam, so we went.
Now I come to the point. The noble Baroness may think—I am sure that her advisers in the department will—that, of course, he ought to be in the community,
356
in one of these lovely little flats or houses in the high street. They could not be more completely wrong and dangerously wrong. If that young man were put into that sort of environment with one or two carers he would not be able to cope, he would not be able to look after himself. Apart from an occasional visit from a social worker and an occasional visit to the local workshop or day centre, he would otherwise be stuck in front of the television and he would deteriorate very rapidly.
As it is, he requires stimulation which he can get from the normal care workers in this village community. There are 20 of the mentally handicapped and 14 care workers. They hope to expand in the near future. He would get that stimulation, the companionship and a wide choice of friendship. He is like anyone else: some people you like and some people you do not. The choice would enable him to expand and develop his personality. He requires the routine and dignity of work. They look after themselves in these family units. They do not have a cook or cleaners as they do in the county council homes. They do their own homework and help in the kitchen, in the laundry, in the bakery, in the woodwork shop, in the weavery, and in the substantial garden, which supports the whole community throughout the year and, in addition, sells produce on a 50-acre farm. There is a choice of work there. In addition, there is a tremendous amount of entertainment among themselves in the evening, particularly drama. I may say that he is a quite outstanding actor. Above all, he requires the affection and security of family life, the family life in which they are living in separate houses and cottages. They are not cut off. They have contact with the outside world, go shopping and go to some function or to see a factory. Visitors come in from the local village to help on various occasions and they go into the village to help with the local bazaar and that kind of thing. They are secure and they have a fulfilled life.
An ordinary assessment without parental consultation in such a case could make the wrong decision. I ask that the social workers should always consult the parents. Some parents are more intelligent than others and some are more sensible than others. They make their judgment. But the parents should be brought in. Thank goodness, I have no complaint at all about Norfolk, where they get the support of the county council, the district council and the social workers.
I ask only for flexibility in the guidance notes and a positive attitude on the part of the Government, not the negative one pursued hitherto. Without flexibility and a positive attitude I do not see how the problem will be solved in the long term.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has instigated this debate on community care for people with learning disabilities. She was generous in not objecting to my taking part, though she recognised that as I am chairman of MENCAP we might differ on terminology and on some policy and practice issues. But, as hinted at by the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, terminology should probably be the subject of another debate.

357
We clearly need to think about people still in hospitals and people who are currently living with their families. As regards the hospital based group, the fact that the noble Baroness's original Question mentioned 16,000 patients and we are down now perhaps to not much more than 8,000 says something about the pace of change, though more about the uncertainties regarding the figures. It also illustrates the rather important point that less than 1 per cent. of all people with a learning disability and only about 5 per cent. of the more severely disabled people now live in hospitals. Perhaps I may add that going back 30 years those percentages were about 5 per cent and 40 per cent. respectively. In other words, community care was the norm 30 years ago, although the long-stay mental handicap—or going back further still, mental subnormality—hospital was much more used. Indeed, it was often the only option for hard pressed parents or for when those parents died and the uncaring community had nothing to offer.
I used the term "subnormality hospital" because I believe that it does no harm to recognise that for many parents and for many people with learning disabilities getting as far away as possible from such hospitals and from all that they stood for is their dearest wish. They do not want to see them preserved in any shape or form. The hospitals are not what they were when the series of horrific reports of conditions in them in the 1960s and 1970s damned and doomed them. However, we ought not to give them too much credit for being safe havens or flagships of specialist care, when, in reality, they had and have so many drawbacks as places in which to live and in which to be looked after. I find it hard to believe that if they were not there, there would be any question of using something like them as a model for living in the 21st century.
That is why I argue, alongside the noble Baroness, in favour of many of the outcomes that she and others seek, including proper concern for safety of vulnerable people and proper attention to specialist resources for people with special needs. But I draw different conclusions about hospital site village communities—I stress "hospital site"—as a way of achieving those outcomes. I prefer the precedents set by the way in which most people with severe learning disabilities have always lived: in ordinary settings, with sometimes somewhat spasmodic access to whatever special support they need.
I argue that case with all the more confidence because we are beginning to develop successfully new forms of supported community living away from the family home for the most severely disabled people. Looking back to the past for care models is like breeding better carrier pigeons when we have the possibilities of the Internet.
I recognise entirely the importance of affordability and I shall come back to that issue before I conclude. But the evidence marshalled by the Government seems to indicate that hospital site village communities are not necessarily more readily affordable unless there is compromise on the use of existing buildings to save capital and on staffing to save revenue.
Fortunately, I hear many expressions of goodwill towards community care for people with learning disabilities as I travel around the country. I am saddened
358
therefore that in seeking to save money, and in putting pressure on local authorities to save money, the Government seem to be putting at risk much of what they have helped to achieve. I instance the tightening of eligibility criteria, cut-backs in short-term breaks and day services, the spread of charges for services that were traditionally free, proposals for housing benefit changes which would make housing with support less affordable, and the tragic cut in disability living allowance for people living in NHS community homes or in hospitals.
When the last of the old hospitals closes in a few years' time there will be few tears shed. However, the noble Baroness reminded us that progress is not about closing things; it is about establishing and then maintaining better things. Government need to remember that our main legacy from the past is not a series of 30-acre sites with, sometimes, singularly unpleasant old buildings, but the odd convention of leaving families rather minimally supported for 50 years and calling that community care. That convention too must be demolished and replaced by something better. If we opt for less and continue to put economising before creating, we shall follow the precedent of the Irishman and his much loved donkey. He had just got it used to doing without food when it died.
9.27 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rix. When I was chairman of MENCAP the best thing I ever did for that organisation was persuade it to appoint him as secretary-general. A year or two before that happened we were extremely worried about the number of people spending the whole of their lives in long-stay hospitals. They varied enormously. Some were only slightly handicapped—for example, Down's syndrome people who were mobile—and others needed constant care and attention and could not even walk.
In 1979, with the help of the new Conservative Government, we started our Homes Foundation scheme to enable any number of between four and eight less severely handicapped people who were mobile to live together in houses with one or two helpers. As my noble friend Lord Hastings said, in his most vivid speech, even some of the less severely handicapped are not at their best in those circumstances. That is something we must face.
I come then to the large numbers of severely handicapped people of all ages, many of whom who are immobile, who could not possibly be housed in that way, even by our Homes Foundation. They need to remain in long-stay hospitals or be fully cared for in village communities. My youngest daughter is such a person. She cannot do anything for herself. She cannot talk, dress or undress, feed herself or walk unless held up. She could not possibly live in the community at large. But for 25 years she has been beautifully cared for at Ravenswood, and there are thousands like her. So village communities or suitable hospitals are vital for their care.
When the noble Lord, Lord Rix, joined us in 1980 we all assumed that only those capable of living in the community at large would be rehoused away from

359
long-stay hospitals. But, alas, thousands of the more seriously handicapped have in recent years been released—often against the wishes of their parents. Their plight is miserable. I am not overstating it when I say that. Some have been put into ordinary houses, like those of our Homes Foundation. Some are being cared for by their families, who are not up to the task. Very few, or not enough, have been found the proper care they need.
That is why my noble friend Lady Cox has done such a valuable service by initiating this debate and why the Government really must reconsider this policy. I hope we shall get a favourable answer from my noble friend. The plight of those people must concern everyone in both Houses of Parliament. Perhaps I may say in passing that there seems to be a vast number of Members of both Houses who are in favour of village communities.
I would like to support most vigorously what has been said by my noble friend in favour of them. I do so not only because of the wonderful way in which my daughter has been cared for but also from my long experience of the problem. Village communities provide not only medical care—continuous medical care: I can speak from experience—therapy and training for those capable of it, but also a friendly communal life for those in their charge. Environmentally, those I have seen are very attractive. It is not an isolated or inward-looking community. Frequent excursions are held into neighbouring towns and villages and local people often come and help with caring, training and entertainment.
Last year, as my noble friend Lady Cox mentioned, she and my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch wrote a most splendid account of Residential and Village Communities for People with a Mental Handicap. In doing so they made a careful analysis of the comparative cost of village communities run by voluntary bodies. They found that they were run more cheaply than those run by public bodies. They also found that it costs less per head to care for people in village communities than it does to care for them in small hostels, like the Homes Foundation houses. It follows from this that the Government should do all they can to help voluntary bodies to start new village communities, like the Camphill Trust which has set such a wonderful example, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, modestly mentioned. I know what a lot he has done to help them. There is also RESCARE in the north west of England, which has been doing splendid work in this field. I only wish that MENCAP would now encourage this trend. I realise that something has separated MENCAP and RESCARE in recent years but they are both doing fine work. I hope that they will grow to understand each other better. I say that in all candour.
This year we are celebrating MENCAP's 50th anniversary with big fund raising and wonderful functions. I earnestly hope that MENCAP will also celebrate our half century, as it did in the past, by giving full encouragement in future to village communities.
9.34 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I start by declaring my interests as the father of a mentally handicapped 16 year-old daughter and as honorary president of RESCARE, the National Society for Mentally Handicapped People in Residential Care. I therefore support everything that my noble friend Lady Cox and my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Hastings have said about village communities. I join them in asking for genuine choice to be available to the thousands of families who desperately want a place for their relatives in such a community but cannot, for the moment, find one.
My noble friend Lady Cox has asked me to mention in more detail than did my noble friend Lord Renton the comparative costs between village communities, as described in our publication Made to Care of April 1995, and community care. I can do no better than repeat the calculations that we made then, which have not been challenged. It is true that the Department of Health in a recent survey attempted to cast a little doubt on some of our figures but as it mixed up capital with revenue calculations we do not regard its contribution as serious.
I emphasise once again that RESCARE's support for village communities in no way depends on the fact that they are so much cheaper than community care. We are not seeking to hide our relatives in underfunded ghettoes at the far end of Highland glens. But in times of scarce resources, cost is always a factor. And if the best can also be the cheapest, it seems folly not to encourage it.
The capital cost of moving someone from hospital to a specially adapted house in an ordinary street is about £50,000 while a hospital site can be converted to a purpose-built village, complete with health, recreational, educational and other services on site, for around £20,000 per resident.
As to revenue costs, it appears to cost some £75,000 a year to support an individual in the ordinary community while a place in a residential or village community, with all services included, can cost less than £25,000 per year.
To get some idea of the magnitude of savings which village communities might offer over time, we should remember that there are about 154,000 more impaired people in the United Kingdom. Over half their families so far consulted in RESCARE's national survey want village communities for their relatives. Family carers are ageing and starting to die out. The time bomb is therefore ticking and at savings of some £50,000 per person per annum I would have thought that the Government should encourage village communities if they can be convinced that they provide the service which so many loving families want. I am glad to say that the Government have come round, although somewhat slowly, to accept that they should at least be on the list of provision which local authorities are encouraged to support. But the ministerial guidance which went out on 5th July just happened to leave village communities off the list again. The civil servant concerned assured the Minister and my RESCARE colleagues on 11th October that it was just an

361
unfortunate typographical oversight. The Minister in question, my honourable friend Mr. Simon Burns, promised to rectify this unlucky episode but has not yet done so. I therefore ask my noble friend Lady Cumberlege to give him a nudge when she next sees him. If village communities were clearly supported as one option by the Government, that would at least prevent so many local officials from claiming, as they do, that the Government are against them.
Despite their long waiting lists—and they all have them—village communities would still have to swim against the huge wave of political correctitude which threatens to engulf them. My noble friend Lady Cox attempted to analyse the roots of this attitude in Made to Care—and indeed she mentioned the problem again this evening. Put at its simplest, the philosophical pendulum appears to have swung too far against any form of institutionalisation for mentally handicapped people. The policy of community care at any price, emotional or financial, is now being too rigorously pursued by local "professionals", many of whom have no experience of mental handicap in their families. Indeed, I have to accuse the noble Lord, Lord Rix, of just a touch of political correctitude this evening when he suggested that many hospital sites cannot be easily changed into very pleasant village communities. I can but recommend that he reads Made to Care again carefully. If anyone feels that a stigma must always attach to these sites, can they explain how some of them have been sold off with the grounds being used for desirable executive mansions?
In order to get the truth of this political correctitude into perspective perhaps I may conclude with a suggestion for my noble friend the Minister? RESCARE is holding a parliamentary lobby meeting in the Grand Committee Room next Wednesday, 4th December, at 2.30 p.m. Spokesmen for the other parties have agreed to come, but so far we have no acceptance from a Government spokesman. My honourable friend Mr. Burns, the Minister responsible, appears unable to attend. So would my noble friend care to come herself? She would then have the opportunity of listening to some of the thousands of families that RESCARE represents and she could not fail to be deeply impressed by how genuine is their cause and how desperate their concern. I feel sure that such a meeting would do much to remove some of the misunderstandings which still surround village communities and so would do much for many of our least fortunate people.
Lord Hastings: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may make one point. He said that the Government were against any form of institutionalisation. The whole point of Camphill, CARE and other such organisations is that they are not institutional; they comprise family dwellings where there is family life. There is considerable and complete freedom. People can change and can move to other places if that is what they want to do. I repeat that they are not institutional.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I completely accept what my noble friend says and very much hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will agree.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, in this debate we find ourselves treading through a series of minefields. We have heard the argument about definition. I have never come across so many hard-fought battles, whatever the area of disability, as over the forms of words that are used. In the dyslexia world with which I am more familiar, I have found that when it is said, "You are disabled", people say, "No, we are differently abled". I then have to turn round and say to those people, "If you are disabled, the law is on your side; but if you are differently abled, it is not". I suggest that we keep our points of reference to what is accepted by the Government. If we do not like that, that is a debate for another day.
I turn now to those with learning disabilities. I must declare something of an interest in that I am a vice-president of the UK Sports Association, which is a body promoting competitive sport for people in that category. Such people have the same right to enjoy an independent and fulfilling life as anybody else. I think that that point is agreed. The only matter that we are debating is how we can achieve that.
Perhaps I may refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said. The old institutions—that is perhaps a fair way to describe them—were probably designed originally to contain a social problem. That was probably more the intention behind them than that of providing support for people. We must bear in mind the social history of this. Indeed, the language used originally points that out. We must not say that that was OK, but equally we must be flexible about how we provide the support to enable people to lead fulfilling lives.
The idea behind care in the community works for the vast majority of people, provided—and this is a huge proviso—that there is appropriate support from outside. We are talking about people who have a disability—that is, they are not fully able-bodied and will need support. The support that may be required might be simply somebody to chat to them and to tell them how to do certain things, such as how to fill in forms or where to go to get help. That may be all that is required. However, that support may take the form of major assistance with everyday functions—or it may be a combination of the two.
As has been pointed out time and again in this debate by people who know, when we are talking about disability, we are talking about a basket of problems. Individuals may have various disabilities thrown together. Each individual is an individual case. Whenever we consider a specific area of disability, we must try to look first at the individual. Whenever we use a blanket term, we get it wrong. Care must be tailored to the individual.
Village communities have been referred to. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, spoke about an institution of which I have heard good things. It is nice to know that somebody else who comes from Norfolk knows that Norfolk is helping out the rest of the eastern counties, but those of us who come from that county may well say, "What else is new?". Communities that work on such a level and enhance individual training are good,

363
but they are not the universal answer. Indeed, I suspect that they are not necessarily the answer—or not the best answer—in the majority of cases. If we can accept that, we are on the way forward. If we take into account the fact that there will never be a universal answer, we have something to go on.
I believe that the thrust of the Government's policy is correct. It is not often that I can stand up and say that. However, the Government must bear in mind that provisions must be properly resourced. To refer back to the concept of the village community, if one is to do it for the simple reason that it is cheaper than something else, one should not trust it. I see shaking heads. I do not seek to convince those on the Back-Benches. I am concerned with those sitting on the Front Benches. If we merely try to provide something that is cheap, we shall not have dealt with any part of the problem. We are doing many things because they are just and require some support, not because they are financially beneficial. If they are financially beneficial—they may well be in many cases—all well and good, but that cannot be the driving force behind the argument. One must bear in mind that this activity is individually based.
I should like to put a specific point to the Minister. I shall understand if she does not have the answer to hand at the moment. Can the Minister bear in mind that one is cutting away the mobility component of the disability allowance if people go into institutions or sheltered communities of whatever nature for any period of time. For instance, disability allowance, which is paid at two rates, can be stopped altogether if an adult goes into an NHS hospital or into residential care for four weeks. Surely, that is wrong, for the simple reason that the allowance often provides funding for parents to visit children who live away from home. This is very important. One is taking away individual choice or the support of an individual by his or her parents who are a low income family. These problems are felt most keenly by low income families. There is no problem that cannot be helped by extra funding.
I conclude by reiterating that in this situation individual dignity must be considered first and foremost. One must not get bogged down by names of institutions or forms of help.
9.47 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting and well informed debate. I express my gratitude, as other noble Lords have done, to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for giving us the opportunity to discuss these important issues in the House tonight. I am sure that that appreciation will not be confined to this House but will be shared by many thousands of people outside it whose lives are deeply affected by the policies that society implements in regard to mentally handicapped and learning-disabled people and their families. These are crucial issues. The level and nature of support can make all the difference to the lives of these individuals.
One doctor to whom I spoke about the subject being discussed this evening told me that services for the mentally handicapped was one of those areas that was
364
always called a priority but never treated as one. Noble Lords have made speeches of great thoughtfulness and commitment, and many are based on years of personal experience. I do not have a great number of years of personal experience, but I can share with your Lordships the fact that I met my husband 25 years ago at a time when I worked for the social services department of Camden Council. My director sent me to liaise with the Camden Society for Mentally Handicapped Children (as it was then called). My husband was the secretary of that society. It was perhaps an early example of the value of good inter-agency relationships.
In thinking about tonight's debate I was struck by the fact that many of the issues which exercised that group a quarter of a century ago were just as pertinent to families and voluntary organisations in the field today. Perhaps foremost was parents' fear as to what would happen to the children who were living with them at the time as they, the parents, grew older and incapable of looking after them themselves. There was a need for a variety of agencies to work constructively together across barriers—across the barriers between the health service and local authority services; across the barriers of voluntary organisations, housing associations, families, and different agencies—if we were to create the right package of support for individuals. There was a need for stimulating and appropriate day care services for people with mental handicap, wherever they were living, and in whatever circumstances they were living, whether in an institution or at home.
Even then there was a recognition of the enormous value of respite services for people who were caring for a mentally handicapped member of the family at home. The irony was that the people for whom it was most difficult to find a respite case were often those who were most challenging and whose families were in most need of such support and help.
It has become clear during the debate that we are talking about a disparate group of people. That may be one of the reasons why we have such difficulty in finding the right terminology and definitions. My noble friend Lord Desai delved in at that point. My noble friend Lady Gould talked about another group of whom we do not normally think in this context. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, mentioned it as well. We are talking about a wide variety of people. Some of them at the end of the scale are people with a minor disability who need appropriate support from an education authority to live with their families and then to live independently. Others have complex medical and social needs as well as a mental handicap. They will require skilled multi-professional care in a residential setting all their lives.
Even within those groups, with similar levels of disability, there will be different preferences as to the style of life those individuals want. We should recognise the preferences of those individuals and families by providing a range of provision, as we would for any other group in society. That, in that non-doctrinaire and non-ideological way, is how we should approach the issue of the village community, so that we do not rule anything in or anything out, but look at choice, quality and outcome in what we are offering.

365
We should look urgently at the range of real and valuable options. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle referred to the needs of those living with their families. A recent report estimated that 40 per cent. of mentally handicapped people are living with carers who are over 60 years of age. We shall face an increased demand. We must have a range of services which are appropriate and give a proper choice to people in those circumstances.
Finally, I should like to raise an important issue with the Minister: it is the system for inspections and regulation of domiciliary care services. Since the advent of community care, we have had a wide variety of people who would in the past have lived in NHS hospitals and who are now living in a variety of different residential settings. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that we should not be using rose-coloured glasses when we think about what happened in those institutional settings in the past. I have no brief to argue for many of them—for the elderly, the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped or physically disabled. Our system of regulation and inspection has not kept pace with the change in provision. We are talking about vulnerable people who are entitled to proper regulation and inspection. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us whether there is any chance of an urgent and through review of the arrangements for such inspections.
9.55 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Cox for initiating the debate. I know of her commitment, compassion and action in meeting the needs of vulnerable people, not only in this country but world-wide. But for the purposes of tonight's debate in which your Lordships have been focusing on a very particular group—those people with a mental handicap or learning disabilities—I am at one not only with my noble friend but all of your Lordships, in a determination that the NHS and social services should provide well co-ordinated health and social services. In this spectrum, I should also like to include the contribution made by non-governmental organisations as partners in care. Increasingly, they are not only involved in shaping the community care plan, but, more than ever, in winning contracts for services.
As my noble friend and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle so eloquently said, today many people with learning disabilities who might once have been shut away in old long-stay institutions enjoy a far better quality of life, undreamt of in the past either by them or their families. A range of living, work, and leisure opportunities are open to them, as never before. Our policy is to ensure that individual needs are respected and that both users and carers have a say in assessments and in the services provided.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for setting community care in its historical context and for reminding us of some of the disadvantages of the long-stay institutions. One only has to read the book by
366
Virginia Beardshaw, Conscientious Objectors, and see in the appendix the horrific list of inquiries in order to be left in no doubt on the matter.
We share the view of my noble friend Lady Cox that not everyone can live successfully in a small house or flat, for some people will need intensive support. It is precisely because people with learning disabilities have such a variety of needs, as mentioned so clearly tonight by many noble Lords, that we wish, through local agencies, to provide what the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Addington advocate; namely, a wide range of services. Our guidance recognises that people with severe or profound learning disabilities and physical, sensory or psychiatric conditions are likely to need long-term residential care at some stage in their lives and that for some this should be provided by the National Health Service.
My noble friend Lady Cox asked about research. It has shown that the majority of people with a mental handicap living in the community have benefited from community care. However, it is important that authorities ensure that people's needs are properly assessed and that authorities also ensure that the type of home and the skills of the staff are appropriate.
Together with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, we also recognise the importance of respite care or short-term breaks for the health and well-being of both users and carers. We are setting up a project to look at good practice in this area from the user/carer perspective, and I am pleased that MENCAP is represented on the steering group.
Day services are also essential and they are growing. The number of places in a sample week in 1995 was 284,000, which is 20 per cent. higher than in 1992. We have also given Section 64 grants to organisations which wish to improve day and leisure opportunities.
Looking more generally at the health needs of people with learning disabilities and the skills required, we have set up a series of workshops, the results of which will lead to the publication of good practice guidance.
My noble friend Lady Cox was concerned about the overall number of NHS and residential care places and may believe that they have reduced. That perception is not correct because it assumes, for instance, that everyone who lived in the old mental handicap hospitals needed some form of residential provision. There will also be people living in their own homes in the community with some support from the services. But the home does not need to be registered and therefore does not show up in our statistics.
The number of places in registered voluntary, private and local authority homes has increased by more than 80 per cent. in the past 10 years. Recent research has shown that there is also considerable variety in that provision. As the right reverend Prelate highlighted, more places will be needed. It is important that authorities, having assessed the needs of people in their area, work with the independent sector and housing authorities to develop solutions which make the best use of resources. It is also important that they work with TECs and other employment and training agencies to provide employment opportunities for people.

367
To help authorities to commission services which both meet the individual needs of people with learning disabilities and make good and efficient use of resources, as my noble friend Lady Cox has stated, in late 1995 the department set up an independent evaluation of the cost and outcomes of various types of residential provision, including village communities. The first phase of the project reviewed existing research and analysed the costs of various types of provision, including the costs quoted in the RESCARE document Made to Care, referred to by my noble friend Lord Pearson. The results were published in July 1996 and circulated widely. But further work needs to be done on cost, quality and outcomes in order to provide authorities with robust and reliable data to help them in commissioning appropriate services. We are keen to ensure that these results in the second phase of the research are available as soon as possible.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether there is any truth in the rumour that "as soon as possible" on this occasion may be as long as three years? If so, is that not a long time? Would not three months be more suitable?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we recognise that research does take some time. Our estimation is two to three years to complete the second phase. My noble friend will know that we are asking Professor Emerson, who is a well-known and respected researcher, to continue with the research. That is important. We hope the research will start in January and, because he undertook the first part of the research, he will be able to hit the ground running and therefore complete the second phase as quickly as possible.
I would now like to address some of the points raised by RESCARE. I understand the reasons why it feels a moratorium on the closure of the old long-stay hospitals should be initiated until the results of the evaluation are available. We do not believe that to be really necessary. There is nothing in our current guidance to stop authorities developing village communities if they consider this is the best way of meeting the needs and wishes of people with learning disabilities.
Ministers have said on a number of occasions that authorities should not rule out options for purely idealistic reasons. The Direction on Choice and NHS and local authority complaints procedures are there to help individuals unhappy about decisions affecting their care. If there is any evidence that an authority has adopted a policy which refuses as a matter of principle to place people with learning disabilities in village communities my honourable friend Simon Burns will take it up with the authority concerned.
My noble friend Lord Pearson suggested that there is a lack of genuine choice for people with learning disabilities. We have made it very clear to all authorities that village communities are an option to be considered in planning services. My honourable friend Simon Burns will be writing to them again shortly about the second phase of the evaluation and will take the opportunity to clarify the department's policy then.
368
My noble friend asked how we were to bridge the gap for the future, as did the right reverend Prelate. The Government have committed considerable resources to community care—£5.7 billion in 1996-97. We meet regularly with the local authority associations to discuss matters of concern with them, including resources. Our guidance recognises that the nature of the client group is changing and people with learning disabilities are also living longer. Personal social services gross expenditure on this group in 1994 was £959.2 million, an increase of 25 per cent. in real terms since 1991. Authorities need to ensure that they manage resources carefully and work closely with health and other agencies in order to make the best possible use of what is available.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, movingly and, I thought, with great insight highlighted the problems faced by patients and families who have suffered a stroke. I assure her that the department has access to considerable research in that area and if it would be helpful to the noble Baroness, I shall write to her with references.
The department's continuing care guidance includes the needs of people who have suffered disablement from a stroke and the department has carried out considerable and detailed work to monitor the general implementation of the community care guidance.
My noble friend Lord Chelmsford raised issues in relation to different definitions of disability and different registers and, by implication, different approaches. The department has encouraged health and local authorities to work together on those issues. Local authorities have particular responsibility to agree overall community care plans with their health partners and there is evidence of an increasing sharing of information including that relating to registers. But we are not sanguine and we recognise that there is still much work to be done.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hastings for his contribution. I assure him that we support his plea for flexibility. We have made it very clear on numerous occasions that it is open to authorities to develop village communities and, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, advocates, a range of provision. We are prepared also to consider evaluating the development of a village community if an authority decides to provide one but we are not prepared to distort local priorities.
My noble friends Lord Pearson and Lord Renton asked to have the policy reviewed, especially in relation to severely handicapped individuals. We seek the same outcomes of flexibility and security for them. We agree that in relation to some individuals, village type communities may offer the best provision to meet their needs. However, other such individuals may find that their needs are best met by other types of care.
The noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Addington, raised issues concerning the disability living allowance. The changes to payments of the mobility component of the disability living allowance brings them into line with arrangements for payment of the DLA care component to people in hospital. Current long-stay patients have been provided with some protection.

369
In conclusion, I know from personal experience what a long way we have come in terms of recognising the potential of people with learning disabilities and their contribution which can so enrich the lives of others. But I know also of the demands which they make on families, friends and carers. Community care is not a soft option; neither is it, nor should it be, a cheap option. But it is a strategy which tries to recognise the individuality and dignity of some of the most vulnerable people in society.
Lord Hastings: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will she say something about consultation with parents, which was something that I mentioned? The social worker in Norfolk actually contacted us and asked to see us before she made her assessment. But I understand that one of the major complaints of the members of RESCARE, of which I am not a member,
370
is that the parents are not always or even often not consulted. Is there anything in the Government guidelines about that?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very valid point. It was because of our concern about that issue that we supported the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act which came into force on 1st April of this year and guidance was issued in February of this year.
I am not quite sure of the timescale to which my noble friend refers and whether the Act was introduced after his friend and he were not consulted, but certainly now we have a legitimate and legislative base for challenging that.
House adjourned at ten minutes past ten o'clock.