Sitting of 10 June 1981

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Stoddartasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the exclusion of council houses of unique historical and architectural interest and importance from the sale of council house provisions of the Housing Act 1980.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): As the hon. Member knows, the Department has received a number of representations about the railway village, Swindon. The Department has also received one general representation on this topic and specific representations from the hon. Member and local authority concerned in two other cases: some cottages in Bedfordshire and some listed buildings in Bath.
    Mr. Stoddart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am pleased that he is to come to Swindon to see the railway village built by Brunel and to hear local opinions on why it should not go out of local authority control? Is he also aware that I would prefer him not to come to Swindon naked—I am sure that he looks nice naked, but I hope that he will not come naked of ideas—and that I hope that he will be able to persuade his right hon. and hon. Friends to amend the Act so that the railway village can remain in local authority ownership?
    Mr. Finsberg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his first remarks. I can only assure him that, unlike some members of the Labour Party, I do not propose to be sent to the conference chamber naked.
    Mr. Latham: Whatever the merits of particular exclusions, does my hon. Friend accept that all Conservative Members want to see as many council houses as possible included and sold, particularly where local authorities are refusing to do so?
    Mr. Finsberg: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Proctor: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), what reassurance can my hon. Friend give to the House that some council houses will not become of unique historical and architectural interest before some Labour authorities sell to tenants, including the London borough of Waltham Forest?
    Mr. Finsberg: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the determination with which my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction is proceeding will give that guarantee to tenants.

    House Building (Public Sector)
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of public sector house building starts for the first four months of 1981.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): On a seasonally adjusted basis, 8,800 in England.
    Mr. Cryer: Is that not a miserable figure compared with over 100,000 houses built in Great Britain in the last full year of the Labour Government? Does not that spell misery for hundreds of thousands of people on waiting lists throughout the country and also for the 300,000 building workers who are on the dole and waiting for a job? Why cannot the Tory Government abandon their vicious, repressive polices and set the building workers to work to build the houses for which people are anxiously waiting?
    Mr. Stanley: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the presentation of the housing programme in terms of starts is highly misleading because for at least four years there has been a significant switch from new build to improvement, which took place under the previous Government as well as under this Government. The hon. Member should be aware that 77,000 local authority dwellings were improved last year, which was the highest number of local authority dwellings to be improved since 1973.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my hon. Friend agree that in some areas, generally Labour-controlled, there was massive building of council houses and restriction on the lease of land for private houses, resulting in more than 50 per cent. of the housing stock being council houses? Does he not agree that, in such circumstances, that percentage is adequate?
    Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is entirely right. One of the major under-used assets in housing is vacant land which is in local authority ownership. My right hon. Friends are doing valuable work through the land registration exercise, which already shows that there are hundreds of acres up and down the country which could be made available if local authorities were willing to sell them.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does not the Minister regret the fact that housing starts in the public sector are so low? Is it not an appalling state of affairs that housing starts last year were the worst since 1925 and, judging by the figures this year, will be only half of last year's figures? What does the Minister intend to do to give some hope to the thousands of people on council waiting lists? Has he abdicated all responsibility for public sector housing?
    Mr. Stanley: I do not regret responding to the local authority associations, which were unanimous in wishing local authorities to have total discretion in how they used their housing allocations. The discretion has been greatly welcomed by local authorities. As I said to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), over the past four years there has been a gradual switch from new building to improvement. For example, in 1977–78, the proportion of

    389
    local authority expenditure going to improvement was 17 per cent., in 1978–79 it was 22 per cent., in 1979–80, 29 per cent. and in 1980–81, 31 per cent. It has gone up in four successive years.

    Merseyside Urban Development Corporation
    Mr. Allan Robertsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will make his final appointments to the Merseyside urban development corporation; and if he will ensure that somebody representative of the Labour movement is included.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I informed the House of my initial appointments on 13 May, and I hope to be able to announce a further appointment in the near future.
    Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that the initial welcome of the Labour movement on Merseyside for the establishment of the urban development corporation is being dissipated by the appointments made, primarily of Tory councillors, business men and academics, with no one representing the Labour movement, in an area that returns Labour councillors and Members of Parliament?
    Mr. Heseltine: The people in the area will judge the UDC by its results. The hon. Gentleman will note from my reply that I have not completed the appointments.
    Mr. Squire: Will my right hon. Friend accept our sympathy over the problem of deciding whether representatives of the Labour movement should come from the trade union movement, the NEC or, on occasions, Opposition Members?
    Mr. Heseltine: The difficulty is that the number of appointments to the Merseyside UDC is limited, so it is difficult to include representatives of all the competing factions within the Labour Party.
    Mr. Graham: Does the Minister recall that the Opposition strongly condemned the autocratic power that he took for himself to draw up the membership of UDCs? Does the outcome not completely justify our charge that the Government hold democracy, consultation and community involvement in complete contempt?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman could not have heard my answer. I am considering an additional appointment to the Merseyside UDC. The area has a long history of dereliction. The people on Merseyside want an agency with the resources and ability to improve that track record, which is what they are getting.
    Mr. Parry: I fully support the statements of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). The Labour movement on Merseyside will totally reject the unrepresentative set-up of the UDC, which comprises Tory and Liberal politicians and big business men.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We will all assume that the hon. Gentleman prefaced his words by "Is the Minister aware" which makes a statement into a question.
    Mr. Heseltine: The answer is no different on the third time of asking than it was on the first. I repeat that I am in the process of making an additional appointment to the board.

    Housing (Metropolitan Districts)
    Mr. Joseph Deanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a study of the housing needs of the six largest metropolitan districts outside London.
    Mr. Stanley: I do not consider that further study is required, as the local authorities concerned provide the Department with considerable information in their HIP returns and strategy statements each year.
    Mr. Dean: Does the Minister's reply not show that over the past two years there has been a substantial increase in the waiting lists of the six authorities? Is he aware that, in the city that I represent, the waiting list has increased by over 2,000, or 10 per cent.? Does not the Government's policy cause despair for those waiting to be housed, and when will the Minister alter the policy to give them hope?
    Mr. Stanley: This is the first financial year in which local authorities have been able to increase their allocations by using capital receipts. [Interruption.] That may be amusing to hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, but for a local authority such as Leeds, which has about 3,000 local authority tenants wishing to buy their houses, it represents a substantial ability to increase its capital allocation.
    Mr. Greville Janner: In metropolitan districts, such as Leicester, where the waiting list for council houses exceeds 10 per cent. of the entire population, do not the reductions in the moneys made available by the Government mean that resources are shrinking as needs are growing, so that those who most need help are becoming less and less able to get it?
    Mr. Stanley: Leicester, too, has substantial ability to add to its capital allocation through capital receipts, and many thousands of its local authority tenants wish to buy their houses, although the city council is making only slow progress in that direction.

    Rating Review
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when the review of the domestic rating system will be completed.
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in considering methods of reforming the rating system in England; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Morrisasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made in considering the financial implications of substituting the domestic rating system with a local income tax.
    Mr. Heseltine: I intend to issue a consultation document on the alternatives to domestic rates in the autumn.
    Mr. Knox: How long will my right hon. Friend allow for consultation, and when will he introduce legislation to reform or abolish the rating system? Does he realise that the matter is most urgent?
    Mr. Heseltine: I take my hon. Friend's point. The matter is becoming increasingly more urgent as rates become higher than can be justified. It would be wrong for

    391
    me to set a limit on the time for consultation before publishing the consultation document. We wish to ensure that the time is adequate for such an important proposal, so the timing of the legislation will be decided in the light of the consultation process.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: My right hon. Friend may fully understand the feelings in the country about the rating system, but will he, nevertheless, be watchful before abolishing a system in which rates are cheap to collect? Will he be careful before moving to another system, as almost all studies show that the cost of collection by alternative methods may be tremendous?
    Mr. Heseltine: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's remark. It is popular to advocate change but not always to announce its consequences. We shall consider the point that he makes.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: Has the Secretary of State considered the recent replies given to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) about the consequences of the rating system, which he has related to the arguments that he has presented to the House on many occasions that high rate demands affect employment? Has he noted that there is no positive correlation between high rate increases and jobs, but, on the contrary, there seems to be a negative correlation, and that where local public expenditure is high the number of jobs does not decrease but continues to increase?
    Mr. Heseltine: The House will want to weigh the research of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) against the virtually unanimous advice of industry.
    Mr. Bowden: Is my right hon. Friend really aware of the growing anger at the unfair domestic rating system? Is he aware that the country is sick and tired of hearing about consultative documents and consultations, and that his office must be stacked with recommendations, consultation papers and goodness knows what else? Will he, without fail, take action next year?
    Mr. Heseltine: I can help my hon. Friend. Few people understand better than I the fury provoked by the domestic rating system. My office is stacked with documents dealing with alternative means to finance local government. The difficulty is choosing the right solution.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that, irrespective of the levels of expenditure, the distortions of the rating system are reduced when the proportion of local authorities' expenditure borne by the Consolidated Fund and other forms of taxation is increased? Why does he seek to decrease the amount of such funding when to increase it would reduce the distortions of which his hon. Friend complains?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman's point is probably technically accurate, but that must be weighed against the argument that those who are elected should be elected against a background in which the electors know something of the costs of the services for which they are voting. The more that central Government takes over responsibility for funding local government, the harder it is to justify the view that local government is autonomous.
    Sir David Price: Following my right hon. Friend's last reply, does he accept the key recommendation of the Layfield report that whoever is responsible for spending money should also be responsible for raising it, so that the
    392
    amount of expenditure is subject to democratic control? Will he base his discussion document on that vital recommendation?
    Mr. Heseltine: I assure my hon. Friend that the thinking behind that statement must be reflected in the consultative document. There are many ways of dealing with the solutions required, but we shall certainly wish that issue to be thoroughly ventilated in the consultative process.
    Mr. Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some information about the draft circular on rate support grant that he is sending out? First, has he now abandoned the disgraceful paragraph under which he would send in auditors to check the inflation assumptions of local authorities—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I honestly believe that the right hon. Gentleman is asking a question that is not related to this one.
    Mr. Kaufman: First, Mr. Speaker, it relates to domestic rating. Secondly, it relates to reform of the rating system.
    Mr. Speaker: "Review" is the key word here. The subject is the review of the domestic rating system.
    Mr. Kaufman: I am asking the Minister to assure us, Mr. Speaker, that in his review of the rating system he will abandon the proposals in the draft circular about which there is such widespread concern. Will the Minister abandon the proposal to send in auditors to check inflation assumptions? Will he also tell us, in his review of the rating system, by what authority that circular is being sent to local authorities threatening to deny them rate support grant unless they send him a return by 31 July for which he has no parliamentary authority?
    Mr. Heseltine: As I understand the question, the right hon. Member wishes to know whether in the time scale of the review of the domestic rating system I shall deal with the points that he has put. He may be well assured that in the time scale of that review all of those points will be fully understood.
    Mr. Kaufman: That may be satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman, but it is not satisfactory to hundreds of local authorities who need a reply to those questions. Instead of being so contemptuous of the House of Commons, as he always is, will the right hon. Gentleman now say whether he is abandoning the paragraph to which I referred and whether the rate support applications already made by local authorities will stand as valid applications?
    Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman, of course, is straying far beyond the question put to me. As my right hon. Friend made clear on the radio at 1 o'clock, the right hon. Gentleman is not only straying but actualy getting the thinking behind our circular quite wrong.
    Mr. Kaufman: No, no.
    Mr. Heseltine: If the right hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to go back to local government and check carefully he will find that his suggestions are not justified.

    Housing (Public and Private Sectors)
    Mr. Douglas-Mannasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies are being undertaken by his

    393
    Department of the probable demand for housing in the public and private sectors by 1983–84; and with what result.
    Mr. Heseltine: The work that has been carried out by the Department for some years on projections of household formation is being continued. I also refer the hon. Member to the Government's views on assessment of need and demand for housing set out in the Government's reply to the first report from the Environment Committee.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does not that reply attempt to conceal the fact that the Government are unwilling to know the facts in case they confuse the Government's prejudices? Is it not also grossly irresponsible and a discourtesy to the House that when a parliamentary Select Committee on which the Government have a minority has unanimously predicted a shortage of nearly half a million homes by the end of this Parliament the Government have neither undertaken any proper studies to assess the accuracy of that prediction nor started to change their policies?
    Mr. Heseltine: I know how much the hon. Gentleman believes that forecasting can solve problems. I take the view, however, that the Department's task is to apply its energies as far as possible to opening up housing opportunities. The Government have carried out a more comprehensive review and have introduced more new initiatives to create potential for housing improvement than any Government for a long time. I therefore totally reject the hon. Gentleman's assertions. With regard to the forecasting which concerns him, I remind the hon. Gentleman that even those who carried out the original exercise had doubts about its value.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Secretary of State live in the real world? Is he unaware that the cost of housing is rising all the time and that vast numbers of people can afford neither to purchase nor to rent? What is the Department doing about the study of the increasing costs of homelessness which fall directly upon local authorities and are reacping levels which they cannot meet? Is the Department prepared to help them?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am fully aware that this country has for many years experienced totally unacceptable levels of inflation. It is precisely because of those inflationary pressures that housing costs have risen and it is precisely because we are challenging that with our counter-inflationary policies that I believe that we are right to hold back public expenditure.
    Mr. Chapman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the latest estimates show that an additional 200,000 single-person dwellings will be needed in London over the next 10 years? Does he agree that that increased demand could be far more easily met if people knew that there was some permanence in the new shorthold concept?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend's question highlights the difficulty that we face. We have introduced new schemes, but the faster we introduce them the more the Labour Party tries to destroy them.

    Water Authorities (Charges)
    Mr. Peter Lloydasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the powers of water authorities, given to them under the Water Act 1973, to bill their customers directly.
    The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): We have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Lloyd: As the ostensibly fairer system that is generally introduced with direct billing is simply a flat basic charge plus a rate-related supplement, does my right hon. Friend agree that this could have been introduced far more simply and cheaply if the water authorities had continued to use local councils as their agents rather than set up labour-intensive direct billing departments of their own?
    Mr. King: That is certainly a valid comment. The problem is that the departments are now set up. They certainly represent economies for the water authorities, as the system helps their cash flow and results in significant savings. As I said on an earlier occasion, I have some sympathy with the concern about direct billing, but the system is now established.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Has the Minister had time to study the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the subject of the Severn-Trent water authority which was referred by the Government? Is he aware that it approves of direct billing but makes substantial criticisms about parts of the administration as well as of the fundamental concept whereby regional water authorities are established and accountable? How will Parliament be consulted on these matters and how does the Minister intend to proceed with the implementation of that report in conjunction with hon. Members?
    Mr. King: I am in the process of studying the report. As the right hon. Gentleman fairly says, it is an important report, which hon. Members will want to study carefully. It will be for the House to decide how it wishes further to consider the report. I hope that we shall be able to make our comments on it within a reasonable time. It will then be for the House to consider how it wishes to take it further.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Will the Secretary of State, when reviewing the powers of the water authorities, consider giving back to the Welsh water authority the land under the jurisdiction of the Severn-Trent water authority now in Wales?
    Mr. King: We have no present proposals to do so.
    Mr. Neale: Will my right hon. Friend nevertheless consider reviewing the methods by which water authorities bill under the existing system to see whether he can curb the enthusiasm of authorities such as the South-West water authority, which has shown its capacity to send out eight demands to one householder, arriving on the same day, in respect of two properties which have no water supply and no drainage? Each envelope bears an explanation, kindly delivered and inserted by the water authority, of why water charges are so high.
    Mr. King: I think that a number of us have suffered from the vagaries of the computer and the mechanised system of billing. These are problems that we face. I thought that my hon. Friend was going to raise the problem of the speed with which some authorities have moved in issuing summonses against people who have not paid their bills. I have taken up that matter with water authorities and a number of them are reviewing their procedures.
    Mr. Stoddart: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at water charges completely? Will the Government consider water not as a commodity but as a service? Since it is a service, will they ensure that the rate rebate provisions apply to water as well as to general rates?
    Mr. King: The hon. Member will know that his Government were frequently pressed to take just such action and steadfastly refused to do so. On balance, we think that their judgment was right.
    Mr. John Wells: My right hon. Friend has mentioned the speed with which summonses are being issued. Will he please look urgently at the habit of some water authorities, particularly the Southern water authority, of charging solicitors' fees by way of court costs at apparently £12 a head, whereas if the man who issued the summons was an ordinary chap such as myself and not a solicitor the scale fee would appear to be £4? All the fellow does is sign his name on a piece of paper. This is absurd.
    Mr. King: The water authorities have found problems over the treatment of costs, and a number of the costs have fallen on them. That is causing them to consider the position again. The whole matter is now under review.

    Housing Waiting Lists
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce new measures to meet the housing needs of the 1·3 million families on local authority housing waiting lists.
    Mr. Stanley: The Government have already introduced a comprehensive range of measures to secure better use of the existing rented stock in both the public and private sectors, to promote low cost home ownership and to give local authorities the maximum discretion in using their capital allocations and capital receipts to meet the housing needs of their areas. I hope that local authorities will make full use of the measures that have been introduced.
    Mr. Allaun: That is no good. Is not the answer to remove the financial straitjacket on local authorities? Is it not damned nonsense to talk about cutting public expenditure when the Government are increasing it by £5,000 per man per year as the dole queues grow? Does the Minister accept the figure of 428,380 unemployed in the building and related trades, such as brick, glass and timber, and that even that figure is increasing as the supply of council housing is cut?
    Mr. Stanley: In his original question the hon. Member referred to the figure of 1·3 million families on local authority housing waiting lists. I draw his attention to the findings of the national dwelling and housing survey, carried out in 1977 by the Government that he supported, which showed that half of all persons registered on waiting lists were already in council accommodation. That suggests some scepticism about the sort of figures that he has been using. If he is anxious to help local authorities to get additional accommodation made available, I warmly commend him to urge all local authorities, and particularly Labour-controlled local authorities, to sell their vacant land and their vacant houses, to speed up the sale of council houses to sitting tenants, and to prevail on his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) to stop wrecking shortholds.
    Sir Albert Costain: Does not the Minister consider that the question put by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) is absurd in the light of the fact that Labour Members continually ask for new measures and that, when the Government bring in the new measure of shorthold tenancies, Labour Members oppose it? Will the Minister accept that up to 100,000 landlords would be glad to let their houses but that the official Opposition are so vindictive and spiteful that they threaten that if landlords are foolish enough to let their houses the Opposition will ensure that they pay for it?
    Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is totally inconsistent of the Opposition, on the one hand, to criticise the Government because there is insufficient rented accommodation in the public sector while trying, on the other hand, to wreck the provision of rented accommodation in the private sector.
    Mr. Jay: Is it not quite natural that the worst figure for housing starts for 50 years should be recorded under the worst Government for 50 years?
    Mr. Stanley: As the right hon. Gentleman may have heard if he was here at the beginning of questions, although he refers to a particular figure for starts, last year the largest number of local authority dwellings were improved since 1973.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: Will my hon. Friend point out to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) and the more obtuse of his colleagues that the 1·3 million families to which he referred did not arrive on the waiting list in May 1979? Will my hon. Friend tell the House what was the figure on the waiting list before the Government took office?
    Mr. Stanley: The previous Labour Government took the same view on this issue as the present Government, which is that, in seeking information from local authorities, waiting lists were a very unreliable indicator of the housing need. Therefore, when the original housing investment programme system was created by the previous Administration, waiting list information was not one of the items sought from local authorities.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: As the Minister is so keen to divert attention from the building programme towards improvements, will he give an assurance that improvements this year will be as high as last year? Instead of looking at so-called new initiatives, will he go back to the old-fashioned policy and start to promote the building of houses?
    Mr. Stanley: As the hon. Lady will be aware, the balance between new building and improvement this year will depend on the decisions taken by local authorities and not on decisions taken by Ministers.
    As she refers to local initiatives and building, she may like to know that there is a very considerable response from local authorities to the Government's low cost home ownership programme. On the latest indications that we have, 105 authorities are making land sales for housing, 80 authorities have building-for-sale schemes on their own land, 59 have improvement-for-sale schemes, and 63 authorities are selling homes unimproved. About two-thirds of all local authorities are responding to the Government's initiatives.

    Durham Beaches (Cleaning)
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he now proposes to take in cleaning the Durham beaches; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): The working party which has looked into ways of clearing up the beaches recommended a pipeline system to convey the waste out to sea. While the system is technically acceptable, it would cost over £23 million to construct at 1979 prices, and it is the Government's view that such expenditure of public funds could not be justified at the present time.
    Mr. Dormand: Is the Minister aware that the National Coal Board nationally and the North-East board have made the most strenuous efforts in this matter, and that Government policies have prevented Easington district council and Durham county council from making contributions which they very much wanted to make? Is he further aware that the National Coal Board, again because of Government policies, is now unable to complete its plans?
    Will the Minister agree that there is a moral obligation on the part of the nation, because of the North-East's industrial past, fully to finance the remainder of the board's plans? The Minister mentioned a figure of £23 million. It is the first time that I have heard that figure. If he thinks that I am exaggerating, may I invite him to come to Durham and visit the beaches with me?
    Mr. Shaw: I am aware of the various facets of the considerable problem that the hon. Gentleman has raised. As he will know, the National Coal Board has undertaken to deal with the pipeline on the landward side but not on the sea side. Although I am aware that local authorities may have been considering offers, none has so far been forthcoming. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point and I shall wish to see him about considering a visit to the area.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Murphyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the agreed system for valuations for council homes by tenants wishing to exercise their right to buy.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Murphy: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, if a local authority employs the district valuer to assess valuation, that department acts as both judge and jury if it provides a revaluation at the tenant's request? Is not a fairer appeals system needed?
    Mr. Finsberg: No, Sir. The present arrangements for the district valuer do provide for an impartial professional determination, even when the initial valuation has been done by his office. In no case will a valuer who has initially valued a dwelling redetermine its value under section 11. Such redeterminations will be carried out personally by the district valuer or his deputy.
    Mr. Joseph Dean: As the sale of council houses seems to be the sole basis of the Government's policy on council house tenants, is it not about time that the Government got their priorities right and gave greater consideration to those who are on waiting lists and who have no homes of their own?
    Mr. Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman should learn the facts about the inaccuracies of waiting lists.

    Poisonous Wastes (Import)
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action his Department intends to take to prevent the importation of poisonous wastes from neighbouring European countries; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. King: Consignments of industrial waste imported into storage in recent months have indicated that some provisions of the Control of Pollution Act, including those governing temporary storage, may not be working as intended. They are therefore being reviewed. I have also had inquiries made of the Dutch authorities and await their response.
    Mr. Hooley: Is it not absurd that our so-called friends in Europe should ship their highly dangerous phenolic wastes to Britain? Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the riff-raff fly-by-night countries—which are trying to make money out of polluting the environment—instead of constantly attacking local authorities, which have to keep the environment clean?
    Mr. King: That is an extremely misleading supplementary to ask on a serious matter. The vast bulk of those wastes are not "highly dangerous". They are a nuisance and should not be here. I understand that some of them were not properly declared. I cannot comment further, because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is the possibility of a prosecution being brought. We are anxious to ensure that goods entering Britain are properly described. If they are described as "goods in trade", that is what they should be, and not waste.

    Partnership Schemes
    Mr. Steenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been allocated within the partnership schemes in each of the last two financial years for economic development in the areas in which the schemes operate.
    Mr. David Huntasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been allocated within the partnership schemes in each of the last two financial years for economic development in the areas in which the schemes operate.
    Mr. King: In 1979–80 about £21 million was allocated under the urban programme to schemes specifically aimed at economic development in partnership areas, and for 1980–81 the figure was about £32 million. Many other partnership schemes also made a contribution to the economic regeneration of their areas. I aim to shift the balance further towards this type of activity.
    Mr. Steen: Does it make sense to pump public money through partnership schemes to service industries in the inner areas and, at the same time, to pump even more public money—through rate abatement—into enterprise zones for shops and warehouses in areas in which private enterprise has failed in the past? Should not enterprise zones be confined to manufacturing industries?
    Mr. King: That point was much debated during discussion on the Local Government, Planning and Land

    399
    Bill. We judged that the enterprise zone experiment should involve the minimum of restraint. Apart from certain limited controls on hypermarkets and on excessive concentrations of retailing, we proposed to make no restraints.
    Mr. Dixon: When does the Minister intend to review the partnership and programme schemes? Is it not time that South Tyneside, which has a high rate of unemployment, was uprated? Given that public expenditure cuts are hitting all local authorities, is it not time that that authority was uprated from a programme to a partnership authority, and that more public money was pumped into the area?
    Mr. King: My noble Friend Lord Bellwin, the Under-Secretary of State, reviewed all the programme and partnership authorities. Our difficulty was whether we could justify adding new districts and authorities to the list. We decided to stick to the list that had been adopted by the Labour Government. That is the right policy to follow.
    Mr. William Shelton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Lambeth is one of the two inner London boroughs to receive funds from the inner city partnership? Does not that show the Government's awareness of Lambeth's needs?
    Mr. King: We are well aware of that borough's needs and we are anxious to ensure that the funds available are used in the most effective way. We shall give priority to economic regeneration in those areas.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the partnership areas economic development is in decline? Is not he further aware that £32 million is a mere palliative compared with the massive public expenditure cuts, in rate support grant and the cut in the amount of help given to industry because of the Government's belittling of areas with development area status? Do we not need a complete change in the Government's economic and industrial policies if we are to help partnership areas?
    Mr. King: We need a genuine sense of partnership between the local authority—of whatever political persuasion—and the private sector. Chambers of commerce, local industry, trade unions, voluntary agencies and everyone else should play their part. The hon. Gentleman's attempt to draw comparisons and to spread dissension is singularly unhelpful.

    Education Committees (Voting)
    Mr. Marlowasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to change the position whereby co-opted members of education committees are permitted to vote.
    Mr. King: I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Marlow: Although most co-opted members are entirely objective in their assessments, from time to time some will have direct or indirect vested interests in the issues on which they are called to vote. In those authorities where there is a close political balance, would it not be fairer to all if that right to vote were withdrawn?
    Mr. King: Primarily that is a matter that concerns the standing orders of the authorities concerned. There are clear rules regarding behaviour if it is a matter of vested interests or declaration of interest.
    Mr. Cryer: Is it not true that the standard of conduct in local authorities is, by and large, strictly applied and that the standard of conduct in this House is much sloppier? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that for this House to criticise local authorities, which have improved and conducted their affairs very strictly, hardly stands examination, when the House has not troubled to debate the Royal Commission report on standards of conduct in public life, which recommended legislative changes for this place, let alone education authorities?
    Mr. King: I hope that the standard of conduct both as regards local authorities and the House is of the highest order.

    Home Improvement Grants
    Mr. Easthamasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities are now no longer offering discretionary home improvement grants.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Figures available to my Department suggest that about 40 authorities—11 per cent. of the total—are not offering discretionary grants at present.
    Mr. Eastham: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 1 million families are living in houses that are unfit for habitation and that 1·5 million families live in houses that lack basic amenities? In addition, the Government's building record is deplorable. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the recent statement of the Environmental Health Officers Association to the effect that houses that are being built now will have to last 400 years unless the Minister takes urgent action?
    Mr. Finsberg: I have read the paper. People hold differing views and I do not happen to share that of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Jessel: If a man wants to improve his house, why should he expect his fellow ratepayers to pay for part of the cost?
    Mr. Finsberg: Parliament has made the availability of grants possible. It is up to individuals to decide whether they want to make use of the legislation.

    Inner City Areas (Private Enterprise)
    Mr. Doverasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the involvement of private enterprise in the inner city areas.
    Mr. Heseltine: No. That is why I am seeking every opportunity to associate representatives of industry and commerce with those of my programmes which affect urban areas.
    Mr. Dover: Will the Secretary of State pay tribute to the excellent work done by some banks and building societies in inner city areas? Will he publicise their efforts and encourage other private firms to come in?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, because some exciting new initiatives are being pursued by such institutions. I should like to see such initiatives being taken on a larger scale. I am considering what I can do to publicise more widely the benefits that have come from a genuine partnership between the public and private sectors in funding new capital schemes.
    Mr. Spearing: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that private enterprise is attracted to the controversial enterprise zones largely because the Exchequer intends to pay the rates? If the right hon. Gentleman wanted an experiment in planning, why did he not carry out the experiment without the Exchequer's subsidy?
    Mr. Heseltine: I think that the hon. Member will realise that the enterprise zone package is a coherent package. He is right in saying that there is a benefit as a result of the rates subsidies which will be borne by the Exchequer, but new planning regimes are part and parcel of trying to give particular focus to those areas. They add up to a coherent package.
    Mr. Bob Dunn: I welcome that answer from my right hon. Friend. Does he not agree that the inner city dweller can best be served if local authorities embark on a radical programme of privatisation of local authorities' services and functions? Is it not a shame that many local authorities have not followed the example of the borough of Southend?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am told that there are considerable opportunities for privatisation of public services, but many people considering such options do not take account of the considerable and positive gain that flows from the private sector, having once become established, exploiting its skills on a much wider scale.

    International Sporting Contacts
    Mr. John Carlisleasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will meet the chairman of the Sports Council to discuss international sporting contacts.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hector Monro): I have frequent and regular contact with the chairman of the Sports Council and will be seeing him again shortly.
    Mr. Carlisle: When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the Sports Council, will he encourage him to discuss soccer hooliganism with his international counterparts? Will he also encourage him to initiate an international conference whereby methods can be considered that will prevent those disgraceful scenes in Basle which brought great shame to all Englishmen abroad?
    Mr. Monro: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his idea. I will talk to Dick Jeeps about that when I see him next. The relatively few spectators who behaved so disgracefully in Switzerland deserve our utter condemnation. They let this country down. At least, things were better in Hungary and I am glad to say that England won the match.
    Mr. Denis Howell: When the Minister next meets the chairman of the Sports council, will he draw his attention to the fact that it is not in the interests of British sport for the chairman to be acting as campaign manager for South African sporting interests? Will he also tell him that such action is seriously jeopardising the future of the Commonwealth Games and will create the maximum embarrassment for the Prime Minister at the forthcoming Prime Minister's Conference, when the Gleneagles agreement is bound to be discussed? Finally, will he tell the chairman that South Africa must convince world sport
    402
    that it can be re-entered, because it was world sport and not politicians that put South Africa out of international sport?
    Mr. Monro: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says. I have absolute confidence in the chairman of the Sports Council. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is overplaying his hand about Dick Jeeps' interest in South Africa. I take the point he has made that it is world sport that banned South Africa from international competition. The first steps back might come from the International Athletic Federation or FIFA, but overall, of course, we are concerned about the Commonwealth Games in Australia next year. We must watch all these matters very carefully.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: When my hon. Friend is talking to the Sports Council chairman, will he ask him to try to persuade football clubs, when they take supporters abroad, to accept direct responsibility for supervising those groups of supporters? Does he agree that the directors and managers of the club should send their people to ensure that the supporters behave in an orderly fashion?
    Mr. Monro: I note what my hon. Friend says. Stemming from the decisions made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), UEFA has strict regulations laid down about the playing of cup matches in Europe. It is a sad fact that UEFA and FIFA have not fulfilled the regulations on segregation of spectators and the distribution of tickets. If those regulations were carried out, that might reduce the problems faced by spectators going to the Continent.

    Rate Support Grant (London)
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total sum of money he expects, based upon the latest information available, to allocate in rate support grant to local authorities in London in 1981–82; and how this compares with what they would have received if the earlier rate support grant formula had still been in operation.
    Mr. King: At the time of the rate support grant last December, London authorities were estimated to receive £1,316 million in grant in 1981–82 against £1,424 million which they would have received if the previous system had operated in 1981–82. As a result of their expenditure considerably exceeding the Government's guidelines, they are likely to lose in excess of a further £100 million. However, my right hon. Friend has requested a revision of budgets, and I hope that London authorites will be able to bring back their expenditure into line with their targets, and thus minimise any loss of grant.
    Mr. Dubs: Given the amount of money that London local authorities are losing in the current financial year through the Government's policies, will the Minister accept personal responsibility for obliging some London boroughs to have a supplementary rate later this year?
    Mr. King: Whether a supplementary rate will be required later this year will entirely depend on the spending policies of each local authority. The spending of local government at present is probably closer to the all-time record in real terms than it has ever been in the history of this country. I do not believe that it is impossible for local government as a whole to achieve the reduction in targets that we have set it. If that is done the reduction in

    403
    grant that each local authority suffers will be minimised and there will be no need for significant supplementary rates.
    Mr. Squire: While accepting completely the desirability of local authorities complying with Government guidelines, as they have under previous Governments, does my right hon. Friend agree that London in particular has suffered, first, from a major shift of resource in one year, and, secondly, from the adoption of guidelines which, in London perhaps more than anywhere else, in 1978–79, have been particularly pernicious?
    Mr. King: I have recognised that, as London has gained in previous years, this year London has lost some share of grant. The impact of that switch will be affected by the degree to which economies can be made this year to minimise what would otherwise be consequential grant changes.
    Mr. Kaufman: I refer to the right hon. Gentleman's reference to revised budgets. Will he now give straight answers to the questions I put to the Secretary of State, which the Secretary of State dodged and avoided? First, with reference to paragraph 9 of the draft circular, will he say whether that paragraph stands and whether he intends to send auditors in to local authorities to check their inflation assumptions when they differ from his own? Secondly, with reference to paragraph 10 will he tell us under what legal authority he has sent out this blackmailing circular to local authorities, threatening to deny them rate support grant unless they knuckle under to his orders to make returns by 31 July? Thirdly, will he confirm that the rate support grant applications that have already been submitted are valid and stand? May I have precise answers to those three questions.
    Mr. King: I recognise the ability of the right hon. Gentleman to extract the maximum amount of political excitement out of a rather boring technical circular to treasurers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Boring?"] I shall deal with the three questions that I have been asked. The first is whether grants will be paid if a revised budget form is not received. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to study the operation under both Governments of the grant claim system, he will see that no grant can be paid to any authority unless it returns its application form. That is the standard way in which grant is paid. The House would be the first to complain if it were done otherwise. There is no more significance to that sentence than that. I am sorry to have to kill that issue before the right hon. Gentleman gets excited.
    The next question deals with the inflation assumption and whether there will be a change. This matter is under discussion with the local authority associations. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that there is a distinction between volume and inflation. It is not correct, as was suggested by one authority, that we are seeking to impose the Government's view of inflation. At the end of the year it will be necessary to ensure that a fair apportionment has been made between volume and inflation. Anyone familiar with the normal method of Government financial management will know why that is so. The circular is a technical circular for treasurers. It is not some new draconian step by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of
    404
    State. Although some people appear to have misunderstood it, if the right hon. Gentleman cares to check with the associations he will find that they are now rather better informed.

    Supplementary Rate
    Mr. Butcherasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have indicated that they plan to levy a supplementary rate this year.
    Mr. King: I am concerned at the reports that a number of authorities intend to levy supplementary rates this year, although I have had no official notification of their intention to do so.
    I very much hope that any such authorities will reduce their proposed expenditure in the course of revising their budgets as we have requested, and that such reductions will remove the need to levy a supplementary rate.
    Mr. Butcher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Coventry recently had a 37 per cent. rate increase imposed upon it, that supplementary rate increases are expected from the West Midlands county council and the Coventry district council, and that the citizens of Coventry are looking desperately to my right hon. Friends for protection against these appalling circumstances?
    Mr. King: The first responsibility for the rate levels in those areas is that of the councils concerned. I view with horror what my hon. Friend has just said, considering as I do the impact that it will have on the industrial and commercial activity in those areas. I am appalled at the prospects that such rate levels should be imposed. It is for that reason that we have called for economy in local government. Just as the late Anthony Crosland had to say that such expenditure could not be afforded, for the same reasons we have to deliver the same message.
    Mr. Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman stop misleading the House on the crucial issue of the circular? Is he aware that the local authority associations do not regard it as a technical matter, and that they are full of deep anxiety about the interference by the Government that the circular involves? Will he confirm that one association, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, has requested the withdrawal of paragraph 9, because it regards sending auditors into the town halls as unacceptable? Is he withdrawing paragraph 9? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Front Benchers are no more entitled than Back Benchers to ask more than one supplementary question at a time.
    Mr. King: I confirm that this technical circular is under discussion between the associations. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to check, he will find that the matter is now rather better understood by the one association that was concerned about it. I think that there is some misunderstanding about the inflation assumption. I have tried to clarify it across the Floor. It is a technical matter, and we want to avoid misunderstanding. This is a technical circular to treasurers, who have to complete the return forms, and we are anxious to ensure that it is as clear as possible.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As Question No. 24, in the name of my hon. Friend the

    405
    Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), inquiring about the non-operation of right-to-buy provisions by local authorities was passed over, and as not one applicant in my constituency has yet received an offer—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It seems that the hon. Gentleman is using the guise of a point of order to make a different point, and that is to be discouraged at any time.

Hotels and Restaurants (Control of Service Charges)
3.33 pm
Mr. George Robertson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the administration of service charges in hotels and restaurants; and for connected purposes.
The purpose of the Bill is simple. It is to give a fair deal to the customers in a hotel or restaurant who pay the service charge on their bill believing that it will go to the staff who gave them the service. It is also designed to give a fair deal to the staff who provide the service, who at present have no legal entitlement to the service charge or any right to information about its allocation, the timing of its payment, or even its existence.
The average person using a hotel or restaurant enters into a contract when ordering a room or a meal. He or she is obliged to pay the service charge if it is advertised on the menu or on the room rates. It it is not paid, a civil action can be raised by the hotel or restaurant to recover the amount.
No such legal status is accorded to the distribution of the accumlated service charge. Instead of the charge being the property of the staff, as the vast majority of customers suppose it to be, it is "massaged" by the management of the hotel or restaurant and either distributed on their behalf to the staff, in which case both tax and national insurance levies are paid, or passed to a tronc—an independent fund—with elected or even non-elected representatives of the staff administering the distribution of the money. In that case tax is paid on it, but national insurance contributions are not.
Self-evidently, there is a different system for every hotel or restaurant in the country. There is also scope for the most inspired fiddling and ripping off at every stage. Customers can easily be ripped-off, because they pay the service charge irrespective of the quality of the service provided. Even a Fawlty Towers hotel, with the soup poured over the customer's head and spaghetti dumped in his lap, will charge the 10 or 12½ per cent. service charge—a form of coerced generosity that makes no sense.
Even when the service is first-rate the customer has no guarantee that the money that he pays in lieu of a special tip is going to the best staff, the whole staff, or to the staff at all. A former hotel worker, who is now manager of a restaurant, wrote to me this week saying:
"There is no doubt that hotel companies and proprietors more often than not see the service charge as pure profit—the cream on the cake."
Coming from somebody who is now in management and has worked in a number of hotels, that gives a stark explanation of the reality of what happens to the customer service charges in all too many hotels and restaurants.
If they have to pay the levy, customers have the right to know that it goes not to swell profits but as additional revenue to the staff. For the staff in hotels and restaurants, the service charge is not simply a frill. For thousands it is a livelihood. It can make up one-third to even a half of the earnings of many of them, for all their working lives. It is no mean amount, and such staff deserve protection—a legal right to what was designed for them.
Not only should the service charge be the legal property of the staff; they must have the right to know how it is paid, by what system, when it is to be paid, and who is
408
to make the decisions on it. For too long hotel staff have tolerated systems of paying out that have meant that the old hands in the hotels control the troncs, paying out at the end of the season and depriving any employee who left before then, or paying out according to a rigid seniority system, an attendance system, or even a system based on age.
Wages in this low-paid, ill-organised, high-turnover industry cannot be left to the whim of any senior hall porter in a four-star hotel or an even more iniquitous system than that. Service charges are no small beer, even to the Government. The Inland Revenue checks the troncs in hotels and restaurants and levies tax on what it expects hotel staff to receive from them. It also assesses tips, and taxes them. However, when I asked the Treasury not long ago how many independent troncs there were in the country it said that it did not know.
Millions of pounds have been lost to the Treasury because of the non-levying of national insurance contributions on tronc payouts in this huge industry. In addition, poorly paid hotel staff have suffered, and will continue to suffer, when they claim earnings-related benefits and pensions.
Tipping gratuities, service charges and backhanders are all part of a bygone feudal era. They degrade the giver and the receiver and encourage the blackmail State, in which one pays over the odds for a taxi but not for a bus; for a hotel porter, but not for a supermarket attendant; for a waiter, but not for a newsagent.
The supposedly equalising service charge was born to spread the rewards of the major service industry beyond those who simply deliver the plate. We are now seeing daily that it has become a questionable baseline for additional gratuities.
It is a pernicious trend that sees this large, important and ill-done-by labour force in the hotel and catering industry continue as a low-wage, low-status occupation, deferring more and more to a reluctantly generous band of customers. As a former official of the Hotel and Catering Workers Union, I know that the vast majority of people employed in this huge industry want, and always have wanted, a fair wage for a fair day's work. They do not want to have to depend on the generosity, coerced or spontaneous, of the customers and of the institutions in which they work. The Bill would be a small step towards making sense and sanity of an irrational, unprofessional, illogical and outdated wages structure. It is a step that I believe would be widely welcomed.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. George Robertson, Mr. A. E. P. Duffy, Mr. Robert C. Brown, Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. James Johnson, Mr. Neil Carmichael, Miss Betty Boothroyd, Mr. Michael English, Mr. Frank R. White, Mr. Giles Radice and Mr. Don Dixon.

HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS (CONTROL OF SERVICE CHARGES)
Mr. George Robertson accordingly presented a Bill to regulate the administration of service charges in hotels and restaurants, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 July and to be printed. [Bill 151.]

Education Bill (Selection of Amendments)
Mr. Daffyd Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to raise a question on the selection of amendments for the Education Bill. As you will be aware, both my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) and I intervened on Second Reading. However, neither of us served on the Standing Committee that dealt with the Bill. My hon. Friend is a member of the Select Committee on Educaion and Science and has a detailed knowledge of, and interest in, the subject. I have a personal involvement in special education for handicapped children. I hope to contribute from that point of view. Against that background, I point out that only one of the seven amendments that we put forward has been called. I draw your attention particularly, Mr. Speaker, to amendment No. 10, dealing with the need for educational provision in hospital for handicapped childen who find themselves in hospital. This matter was not discussed in Committee. I feel that it should be raised on Report.
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Obviously, when a Bill of his sort comes before the House I lean over backwards and do my utmost to try to be fair. I hope that I approach every Bill in that way. An issue relating to handicapped people obviously gives me cause for special consideration. It is unfortunate that some of the hon. Gentleman's amendments were beyond the scope of the Bill. Some of the issues have been discussed upstairs in Committee and voted on. Amendment No. 10 was covered by another amendment debated upstairs, which explains why it was not selected on Report. I must remind the House that there is no point in holding a Committee stage if all that happened in Committee is repeated again on Report. That is the difficulty that faces the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I respect and understand fully your sense of fairness and your difficulties. I appeal, however, for reconsideration of the decision not to select for debate amendment No. 2, which prevents local education authorities from consigning disabled children to special schools away from their friends and non-disabled peers, and sometimes even away from home, merely because the bricks and mortar of local schools are unsuitable for their needs. I appreciate that there was reference to the amendment in Standing Committee by two hon. Members. However, many organisations, including some representing disabled people, would like the issue to be debated here today. This most important amendment could profoundly affect the educational opportunities of disabled children.
There is another factor, Mr. Speaker, that I should like you to consider. Earl Mansfield, Minister of State, Scottish Office, moved in another place on 2 June an amendment to the access provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 as they affect Scottish law, including section 8 of the Act concerning schools and other educational buildings. The amendment is one of considerable importance and represents a development that hon. Members should take into account here today before completing the remaining stages of this Bill. In particular, a debate on amendment No. 2 would give the
410
Minister an opportunity to inform hon. Members how the Government's initiative in another place affects their thinking on access to schools under clause 1 of the Bill. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you will want to do all that is possible to help. I hope that you can accede to my request.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he would seek to raise this point of order. I have had an opportunity to investigate the matter at some length. The whole House is aware of the right hon. Gentleman's special interest, and also that of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), in this matter. I find that the hon. Members for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), for Caerphilly (Mr. Hudson Davies), for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), and the Minister all referred to the matter on a considerable scale in the fifth and sixth sittings of the Standing Committee. I re-read the proceedings this morning. I am, of course, prepared to look at the issue again, but I do not want to raise false hopes that the selection of amendments can be reconsidered. When a matter has been discussed in Standing Committee it is unfair that it should be repeated on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. All hon. Members, I am sure, appreciate the effort that you have devoted to considering the matter and your response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). Your reflections on the proceedings in Standing Committee are correct. A further consideration, however, in the crucial nature and relevance of amendment No. 2 to the principle of the Bill, as defined within the terms of the title of the Bill. As the debate in Standing Committee shows, the contention is that there should be a different provision for children with mobility difficulties, as opposed to those with learning difficulties. They may be disadvantaged by local education authorities that do not acknowledge the principle that hon. Members would like to see fully legislated for in a Bill of this nature.
A second consideration is that the law is in the course of being changed in two respects on the crucial matter of access. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, like myself, will acknowledge the expertise of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe. Since the law is in the process of being reconsidered and changed in another place, in two pieces of proposed legislation, I hope that hon. Members, depending on your discretion and reconsideration, will be able to make their contribution to that reconsideration of the definition of access, especially as it affects education. As you will readily acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, the question of access is essential and, indeed, is the major determinant of how disabled and handicapped people are likely to be able to conduct the rest of their lives.
Mr. Wigley: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to underline what the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) said about a measure being discussed in another place which relates to the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Since the matter was debated in the Standing Committee on the Education Bill, the Government have accepted certain amendments in the other place relating to access. These have a material bearing on access to education institutions.
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) and also to the hon. Member

411
for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). I think that I am right in saying that he is the honourable Member for Bedwellty—
Mr. Kinnock: That is correct.
Mr. Speaker: —so far. I am not taking sides. I am completely impartial. Bearing in mind the arguments of the two hon. Members and also that of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), I shall look at the matter again. Hon. Members must bear in mind the comments that I made earlier. The House expects me to try to restrict the Report stage to matters that have not been discussed, but could have been discussed, upstairs in Committee. I shall, however, give further consideration to the matter to see whether I can help the right hon. Gentleman and the two hon. Gentlemen. I shall let my views be known at least by 6 pm.

Orders of the Day
  Education Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause 1

  DUTY OF HEALTH AUTHORITY TO NOTIFY PARENTS ETC.
  'If an Area or District Health Authority, in the course of exercising any of its functions in relation to a child who is under the age of five years, forms the opinion that he has, or probably has, special educational needs, the authority shall—

  (a) inform his parent of its opinion and of its duty under this section; and

  (b) after giving the parent an opportunity to discuss that opinion with an officer of the authority, bring it to the attention of the appropriate local education authority.'.—[Mr. Carter-Jones.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.50 pm
  Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Duty to notify parents about relevant support organisation.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: I wish strongly to support new clause 2. I understand that new clause 1 will have a fair wind from the Government. I want the House to note the date—10 June 1981. Is it not a sad reflection on the House that we have had to wait until 1981 to place on the statute book a simple provision which everyone believes should have been there for a long, long time? The new clause provides:
  "'If an Area or District Health Authority, in the course of exercising any of its functions in relation to a child who is under the age of five years, forms the opinion that he has, or probably has, special educational needs, the authority shall—
  (a) inform his parent of its opinion and of its duty under this section.'"
  That would be a normal action to expect under any circumstances, but we are having to enact a law to enforce it.
  Many hospitals may be upset by that provision. I ask them not to be upset. If they have carried out that practice, good luck to them. They have our full blessing. The new clause aims to deal with the arrogant people in the medical profession—thank goodness they are in a minority—who do not accord that right to parents. I praise all hospitals who give parents that right.
  The new clause also provides that an authority should "(b) after giving the parent an opportunity to discuss that opinion with an officer of the authority, bring it to the attention of the appropriate local education authority.'."
  Those two provisions are all that the clause contains. I understand that the Government will look favourably upon it. I am not a parliamentary draftsman, and the clause had been drafted by an expert. He may have the legality correct, but much of the morality and real thinking is missing. I wish to spend a few moments speaking directly to the Secretary of State. Apart from granting us the new clause, I ask on behalf of all hon. Members and of parents outside that when he writes the guidelines to the Act he ensures that the spirit behind the new clause is enshrined in them.

  413
  One thing is certain—if a child under five is born with a handicap but receives no attention until he goes to school, he will experience a double handicap. In many cases of sensory difficulties it is possible to reverse the trend and prepare the child for when he starts school so that he will not suffer from a double disadvantage.
  I wish to read a letter from a constituent to show the importance of the new clause. She is not a feckless person, but a woman who has had four children, the fourth being born with some form of handicap. She is a professional lady and a councillor. She should have known her way around these matters. However, with a newborn baby she found herself in difficulties. Many mothers will find themselves in a similar position. They need our help. My constituent has given me permission to read part of her letter. She says:
  "There were many moves I had to make to get my child monitored for handicap and these took a long time. Many mothers would feel at a loss in this situation and vital remedial attention could be neglected at the optimum time.
  I would therefore urge you to exert whatever pressure you can upon the Government to recognise the social, economic and practical reasons for careful screening of children of pre-school age."
  I repeat that my constituent is not a feckless person. She would say that she could cope in all situations, excepting this. She needs help and advice. I shall return to that theme when I speak to new clause 2 in the name of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), who regrets that he cannot be present.
  The education and training of a handicapped child cannot begin too early. He has to be taught skills that an ordinary child spontaneously picks up during his early years, such as speech and movement. I stress the words "speech and movement". Early stimulation and experience are vital for the handicapped child to ensure that his handicaps do not trap him in frustration and boredom.
  Often a spastic child cannot be diagnosed for a few months. He will have difficulty in some of the muscles and the tendency is to exercise the strong muscles and to neglect the weaker muscles. Unless he receives physiotherapy treatment quickly, he will suffer further handicap and damage. Physiotherapy should begin during his first year to help him make correct and useful movements. I am not using the esoteric language of the academics; I am trying to use the simple language of ordinary people dealing with their own children.
  Left to himself, a spastic child will choose the easiest way and use the strongest muscles, thus letting the weakest ones become useless. Contraction and tension of the muscles could develop and cause a secondary handicap which, when the child goes to school, could be a tertiary handicap, which would make his position even worse.
  Some children have speech difficulties. Speech therapy should begin early. It is essential to encourage correct muscular control through correct voicing, breathing, sucking, swallowing and blowing. The child then moves to babbling and, gradually, the introduction of syllables and words until finally simple phrases and sentences are reached. The speech therapist can help so that when the child starts school he does not face the embarrassment of difficulty with communication.
  I find it dreadful that I am asking, in June 1981, for such provisions to be incorporated in legislation. It is a matter of right for everyone which should never have been
  414
  overlooked. I understand that the Minister will accept the new clause—not, I hope, because it has no resource implications, but because it is the right thing to do. We should grant such a right, and that should be done here and now.
  I come now to the child with hearing difficulties. Ordinary children acquire knowledge through hearing. A child who cannot hear needs to be taught, trained and made ready to receive education. The same happens with the sensory handicap of blindness. Much can be done for the sensorially handicapped, physically handicapped and mentally handicapped if we start now. It could be argued that such provisions are economically sound. However, I am not here today to advance an economic argument. I am here to advance what I hope is a sound, practical argument. We should provide for all handicapped children.
  I wish to refer to new clause 2 standing in the names of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely, myself and other hon. Members. I accept that there is difficulty in drafting a suitable clause. However, I ask the House to remember my constituent—that able woman who knew the difficulties of administration and said that she needed help—and understand that the new clause attempts to say to her and others in a similar position "There are voluntary organisations that might be able to assist you with your problem."
  4 pm
  The voluntary organisations in their specialties acquire a tremendous amount of skill, knowledge and experience, and they are able to offer that freely. In Committee the Minister told the hon. Member for Isle of Ely that there may not be facilities for voluntary organisations in all areas. In a superficial sense we could accept the reality of the Minister's argument. However, if he wants to sponsor and stimulate voluntary organisations he should give them a challenging task to perform. He should say to them "A duty is being imposed upon the local education authority and the area health authority. Therefore, they will have to consult you." I am sure that voluntary organisations such as MENCAP and the Spastics Society and all the organisations associated with the blind and the deaf would provide the necessary facilities.
  I hope that new clause 1 will be accepted. I urge the Minister to write in the memorandum a note to the effect that we are thinking of neonates as well and that consultants have a responsibility to ensure that adequate training is given, and, wherever necessary, education, to allow the child to be a total child and overcome his handicap. I ask the Minister to reconsider new clause 2 and to ascertain whether there is a way in which the resources of voluntary organisations can be marshalled to provide help for specific handicaps.
  Mr. Speaker: I have had an opportunity to reconsider amendment No. 2, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). I have made arrangements for it to be put on the selection list to be called and to be debated and, if necessary, voted upon. It will be called after we have discussed new clause 8.
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and, I am sure the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), may I say that we are most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker? I am sure that our attitude will be shared by all those outside the House who are closely observing our proceedings.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The whole House will be grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the personal attention that you are paying to the Bill, which matters so much to a minority who are beset with serious problems.
  I agree with everything that the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) said about new clauses 1 and 2, the latter tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). We are considering the plight of those who have received news that will have the most serious and dramatic consequences for themselves and for the child of whom they will take care. In Committee many cases were quoted and examples given of the bewilderment of parents in those circumstances and the difficulty that they have with bureaucracy, even when it is operating at its best, let alone when it sometimes proves unresponsive and unhelpful.
  In Committee my hon. Friend quoted two cases which were relevant respectively to the new clauses which we are now discussing. He referred to the parent of a spina bifida child, who said:
  "Nobody tells you about your child; I still don't know the name of what is wrong with her, I've seen it written down on doctors letters but … you ask them at the school, and hospitals and they just say 'I don't know'".
  It is precisely to deal with that bewilderment that new clause 1 is on the Amendment Paper, and I welcome it.
  My hon. Friend quoted someone who said:
  "This terrible depression comes over you. If I could have seen someone I would have liked someone who had the same, or nearly the same, problem, the same kind of worry. A parent. Someone you could have really poured your heart out to and known that they could have fully understood."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee; 2 April 1981, c. 475.]
  It is that circumstance that links new clause 2 with new clause 1 in these discussions.
  The purpose of new clause 2 is to extend the informing function that is embodied in new clause 1—the responsibility on the area health authority to tell the parents and to take that a stage further and require the authority to tell the parents about support organisations, voluntary organisations, which may be relevant. I think that there was a general understanding among Committee Members that the Minister was hoping to meet that requirement as well as the requirement that has been met by new clause 1 when he replied to the debate in Committee.
  I shall explain why I think that new clause 2 contains an important principle. The Bill is almost the only response to the Warnock report and there is much concern that this is legislation for integration without resources and without expenditure. We must all be conscious of the fear that the Bill will create expectations that will be little satisfied. That is exactly the fear that proved to have good grounds in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. However, we are discussing an area in which the Bill can achieve positive good and where it may be said afterwards, "At least in that respect our lot was improved", even if there turns out to be disappointment that, because of lack of resources, some of the other features of the Bill do not materialise effectively in the short term.
  The Warnock committee stressed the importance of support organisations and the need for parents to know about them. It reported:
  "Parents of children with disabilities or significant difficulties
  416
  should also be informed at an early stage about voluntary organisations and associations of parents similarly placed. These can offer support and encouragement to parents, give information about the different services available and, in many areas, provide pre-school opportunities for young children with disabilities."
  That is what parents most need. They want other parents to talk to, with whom they can share experiences.
  It is essential for handicapped children to receive help as early as possible before school age. The hon. Member for Eccles said that much can be done before school age and that often it is not likely to be done if the parent is not in touch with other parents who have a shared experience. The social worker and the local doctor may have only limited experience of the handicap. It may be the only handicap of the sort that has arisen in the area for several years.
  It is only through a specialist organisation that the parent is likely to be put in touch with the possibility of pre-school help for the child. That underlines the need for parents to be informed at the earliest stage about support organisations. At present it is a matter of luck whether they are informed.
  If the handicap is well known, the relevant organisation will be known nationally—for example, The Spastics Society. However, the support organisations for less well-known handicaps are naturally much less well known although no less effective in the work that they do. The Warnock committee quoted the research carried out by the York university social policy research unit. It appeared that many parents of handicapped children had little contact with either statutory or voluntary organisations. That encouraged it to stress the need to give that
  When the issue was raised in Committee by my hon. Friend, with the strong support of other members of the Committee, the Under-Secretary of State's response seemed to imply a willingness to try to meet my hon. Friend's case, although he expressed reservations about practicalities and drafting details. In his response to the principles of notification and the need for parents to be informed of support organisations, the hon. Gentleman left the Committee with the impression that the Government were anxious to meet the case and were prepared to try to do so. He said:
  "I suggest that a clause be drafted for Report in the names of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) and also the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones). The services of my Department and all of us will be given to make sure that we get a tight clause which will fulfil all the needs that we have mentioned."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee; 2 April 1981, c. 478.]
  I welcome the effort that has gone into the drafting of new clause 1, and I am glad to see it on the Amendment Paper. However, the linking of those names and the tenor of the debate suggested to my hon. Friend and others that the Government wanted to meet both principles. Therefore, my hon. Friend took up the matter with the Department and the Under-Secretary in the hope of satisfaction, and withdrew the new clause.
  The Minister replied that, after thought, he had decided that he could not meet that criterion or draft a clause that would embody the principle of giving details of the support organisations. I studied his letter carefully, and I do not believe that his arguments in that respect were convincing. He said:
  "In the first instance, it is more often than not impossible at birth for doctors or midwives to know whether a child is indeed handicapped … Secondly, even when serious handicap is obvious to doctors at birth the news must be broken very carefully to the parents".

  417
  It is obvious that both those statements are true, but to regard them as arguments against what my hon. Friend sought to do is to misread my hon. Friend's intention and the new clause. The intention was that as soon as the handicap could be indentified the information should be provided, and provided again after the parents had had time to absorb the full emotional impact of the news.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is it not dangerous that the Minister seems to be making a judgment that the needs of the parent are more important than the needs of the child? Although we should have compassion and concern for the parents, surely the needs of the child are paramount and we should ensure that the child gets the appropriate help as soon as is necessary.
  Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I thought that we had passed that stage. New clause 1 is an attempt to make it clear that the House is not prepared to allow essential information to be withheld from parents because of the medical custom and practice that people should not be told the truth. Perhaps an element of it can still be seen in the reply that I just read, that it might be bad for parents to be given, in addition to the other things that they have been told, the details of the support organisations at that stage. That does not stand up as an argument. We do not seek to prescribe a form of words or a manner in which doctors should convey the information. We simply seek to ensure that parents are given the information.
  The Under-Secretary's second argument against embodying this issue in the law is what he described as
  "the technical problem, of defining 'support organisation' in law. By this, we understand 'voluntary body', which has itself no status in law".
  The Under-Secretary went on to talk about the possibility of using "charitable status" as the basis, and enlarged on the technical difficulty of defining "support organisation".
  I reject that approach. We are not talking about giving a large tax advantage to support organisations. We are not discussing something that can be abused and therefore requires the narrowest and tightest statutory definition. We are talking about the need to tell parents about organisations which we know exist, whose abilities and contribution we know well, and which the Department and the Department of Health and Social Services know well. There is no technical problem about identifying those organisations.
  In a moment I shall come to the quality of those organisations, but the Minister is going down a blind alley if he supposes that elaborate drafting is needed to safeguard ourselves against calling something a support organisation that is not a registered charity, or whatever. We are discussing organisations which we, as laymen interested in the subject, know about and have no difficulty in defining.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: Would it not be possible for an organisation, an umbrella such as RADAR, to have the authority to suggest an organisation? It is a reputable organisation, so could not the local authority ask it about the best place for getting help? RADAR, with its umbrella organisation, could do it.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Beith: There are all sorts of means by which this requirement could be met. The hon. Gentleman has
  418
  suggested a sensible way to do it. Parliamentary draftsmen should not be allowed to stand in the way of common sense. It is obvious to all of us what we are talking about and that it can be done. The difficulty of drafting an appropriate phrase may be insuperable if it involves complicated tax law, but it is not insuperable in trying to give practical help to people through voluntary organisations.
  The Minister said that the third difficulty is that
  "Local support organisations are not always well organised or uniformly good at providing the kind of support that we would all wish parents in this situation to have".
  That is a diplomatically worded paragraph, and we know what he means, but for parents in this situation almost any help is better than none. Even the smallest group of ill-organised parents who have a shared experience is better than no parents at all and nobody with whom to talk over the problem.
  We all know the organisations involved in this sphere well enough to recommend the principle without any real fear that people will fall into the hands of organisations that are so badly run that they are a handicap or a problem. However, if it were a difficulty, there are ways round it. The Department could have a register of organisations and set criteria and standards if it felt that that was necessary. It could have a list of recommended organisations.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: Surely nothing has been sacrificed, because the National Health Service has the right to choose the local organisations or national organisations.
  Mr. Beith: Again I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The National Health Service has extensive experience of co-operating with voluntary organisations. Our NHS could not run without that co-operation. There is ample experience in every health authority of which are the reputable and reliable voluntary organisations.
  Many representations have been received from outside bodies. When the matter was being discussed in Committee, the director of MENCAP wrote:
  "Even if a local network is not perfect, many are and it would be quite wrong to deny parents the support of the relevant organisation, just because some of these organisations may not be able to cope with the situation".
  He said later:
  "I would go further: should this clause be accepted all these organisations would be eager to extend their existing services and do their best to make the clause work satisfactorily."
  After all, what would make these organisations better but the involvement of more parents, so that every parent with that handicap in the family has the knowledge to join and take part in the organisations? Their finances would be stronger if parents subscribed to them. Their local effort would be stronger if more parents belonged to them. It would be in all our interests if they were strengthened.
  Brian Rix wrote at the same stage, when the matter was being discussed in Committee, saying that changes along these lines
  "would be a considerable improvement on the present Bill and there appears to be no conflict … as far as these … proposals are concerned".
  The principle should surely have been accepted from the beginning. It is disappointing to many hon. Members that the Government have sought technical objections to exclude it from the parts of the Bill where in other respects they have been prepared to make improvements. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us today that he is prepared to find another way of meeting the objective. Otherwise, we shall have to return to the matter time after

  419
  time—for example, in another place—because it is generally understood that parents with this difficulty need the support of other parents and of voluntary organisations, and should be told about those organisations.
  It is in the nature of large public bodies such as health authorities that requirements such as this are sometimes forgotten or ignored. We want to find a way of making every health authority realise that, just as it must inform parents about a handicap, so it must tell them what voluntary help is available to them. The Bill can do that without spending any money. At least let us achieve that much.
  Mr. John Hannam: I support the speeches that have been made by the hon. Members for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I particularly support new clause 1. As the hon. Member for Eccles was, I think, helping to land Concorde at the time, I moved a similar new clause on his behalf in Committee. It is good to see the hon. Gentleman present today, and I am glad that he has moved new clause 1.
  The two new clauses deal sensibly with the problem of communication at the time of the discovery of handicap in a young child or baby. New clause 1 places the responsibility quite squarely on a health authority to inform the local education authority about a child with special needs. New clause 2 enables parents to be informed of the various support organisations that can help with the handicapped child. Together the new clauses provide a two-pronged process, in that the information will go from the health authority to the local education authority and from the health authority to the parent. We must not forget the importance of keeping parents fully involved and informed Some of the later amendments return to that theme.
  MENCAP, the national society for mentally handicapped children and adults, has been particularly concerned about new clause 2 and feels that it should be accepted if possible. It has produced a great deal of evidence which shows how stress and unhappiness can be reduced after the birth of a handicapped child if help, advice, information and good counselling are made available to the parents.
  Many clearly defined local organisations can deal with the different handicaps. I am sure that they would be willing to extend their services and help if that was required under the provisions of the new clause. All the evidence points, not to the sudden discovery of a degree of handicap, but more to a gradual unfolding of the degree of handicap, the extent of the difficulty and what should be done about it.
  I therefore believe that, taken together, the new clauses will provide the necessary links between the multi-disciplinary teams that already exist and the education authorities, which will now have the new responsibility for assessment from birth.
  We talked a great deal about good practice when we discussed this matter in Committee and about how it existed in certain areas but not in others. We said that we wanted to see that good practice spread throughout the country. The proposed changes to the Bill, many of which the Government have accepted, are designed to extend good practice as well as the activities of the multi-disciplinary teams in conjunction with the education authorities.
  420
  Again and again in Committee we stressed the need for the early provision of information to prevent later damage being caused, both psychologically and educationally, to children. I believe that the changes proposed in the new clause,s will improve the Bill, and I hope that the Government will accept them.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I understand that new clause 1 flows from exchanges in Committee about the need for the earliest possible identification of special educational needs. This is an important new clause on which I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) and the other hon. Members who put their names to it.
  Like the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles is an old hand in this field. He said that he was not a parliamentary draftsman. That may be so, but he knows a good clause when he sees one. What is more, he appears to be very happy with the new clause.
  My hon. Friend's work goes back beyond the introduction of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, in the making of which, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and other hon. Members on both sides a the House, he played a distinguished role. Then, as now, he was intensely concerned to ensure the closest possible working together of agencies, statutory and voluntary alike, that can help disabled people and especially disabled children.
  A great deal of knowledge is locked away in statutory organisations that could be of value, sometimes of considerable value, to other statutory organisations. It is said that knowledge is power, but it can also be an important resource. And we waste resources if knowledge is not properly shared in the statutory sector. New clause 1 accepts that proposition and also sets in relief the importance of co-ordination between statutory authorities.
  There are two reasons why co-ordination is important. The first is that if the disabled person is to receive the right help, in the right place and at the right time, the left hand of the Government must know what the right hand is doing. I refer to local government as well as to central Government. That is what practical help for disabled people is really all about.
  The second reason why co-ordination is important is that, with resources that are always likely to be limited, we must make sure that they are used to best advantage. Only effective co-ordination within and between the statutory authorities, and between central and local government and all the voluntary agencies outside, can ensure that there is a minimum of duplication and waste. As I said, knowledge is about resources as well as power and, whatever else we may or may not be able to afford, we certainly cannot afford duplication or waste.
  New clause 1 says that area and district health authorities should, where appropriate, provide information to local education authorities. I hope that the LEAs will not be selfish with information that may be of help to disabled people if it is made available to social services authorities as well or, indeed, to any other authorities. The more we can share information, the better we shall serve the interests of disabled people.
  New clause 2 is also important. I want to give praise today to the Voluntary Council for Handicapped Children. The council's work under the leadership of Dr. Mia

  421
  Kelmer Pringle has been outstanding. She and her colleagues have provided an excellent service for disabled children and their parents.
  The single-door policy is important in this respect. If a mother suddenly learns that her child is severely disabled, she can find the number of agencies with which she has to deal extremely daunting. The more that we can direct the parents of handicapped children to one person who can unlock all the other doors of agencies that can help, the more we shall see progress in this important area.
  I commend the two new clauses to the House and I very much hope that they will be approved.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Most of us found our experience in Committee frustrating and disappointing, because almost everyone involved with the Bill realised that the easiest way to make significant improvements in the education of handicapped and disadvantaged children was to allocate extra resources. But every time we pressed for extra resources we were firmly told that there were none.
  That is particularly disappointing in respect of these new clauses, because these were two areas where we felt that we would get small but worthwhile concessions. I welcome all the implications that new clause 1 will be accepted. However, it is disappointing that the Government seem to have had a change of heart and have decided that they cannot give their full support to new clause 2. The Minister ought to give an undertaking that he will have a further look at this matter and at least introduce an amendment in the other place, because I am sure that he will be under considerable pressure to do so.
  The Minister must consider the importance of giving people the opportunity for self-help by talking to someone who has experienced the problems, so that as a result of the shared experience they may learn to cope. Most of the people involved in the voluntary organisations at local level have experienced the problem either directly in their own families or through friends. Therefore, others can turn to them for sympathy, understanding and advice on how to cope with the difficult problems that they will face in the first few weeks. They can continue to get help and understanding from them over a longer period. It is extremely important that people should be given the information.
  4.30 pm
  The Minister may say that in some areas there is no appropriate organisation. In a few letters of notification the health authority may have to say "We regret that in your area there is no local organisation, but there is a national body that you can contact". I suspect that if such information were given it would inspire these people to get in touch with others to ensure that in future the same problem did not crop up. In most localities where voluntary organisations have been established it has been because someone has experienced the problems of going it alone and has realised the advantage of sharing the experience with other people with the same problem. If this provision were incorporated in the legislation, even if in a small number of cases it had to be admitted that no useful information could be passed on, in the vast majority of cases it would give people help at a time when they badly need it. I hope that the Minister will have second thoughts.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I support the comments that have been made, from the background of my personal and family experience. I should declare an interest, although in the context of the amendment the interest is not directly relevant, because the circumstances of our two handicapped children are such that they have gone beyond the stage to which the amendments apply. In considering the amendment it may be to the advantage of the House if I refer briefly to my personal experience.
  We have two severely mentally handicapped children. One was aged 3 and the other 2 when the information about their condition was made available to us. It had been impossible for the agencies of health, social services and education—although I exonerate social services and education, because they had not an involvement at that stage—to make the information known to us prior to that. I have reason to believe that it might have been possible for the agencies of health to have done so. Therefore, at the age of 3, when the educational process normally starts for a non-handicapped child, we had to contend with the education and other services necessary for handicapped children.
  As hon. Members have said, it is a traumatic experience to find that one has a handicapped child. It is an experience from which one learns a lot. I agree entirely with the comments of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) about the benefits that can accrue from shared experience at this stage. When parents find out for the first time that their child is handicapped there is a danger that they do not know how to react. They tend to turn in on themselves and perhaps pretend that they have not heard, or have misheard the information. Therefore, it is important not only that parents are told of the condition of the handicap of the child but that more than information is provided. There should be follow-up facilities to enable parents to discuss their difficulties with others who are experienced in the problems that will face them and to benefit from the experience of others, so that they can more easily face the difficulties that will be involved with their own child or children.
  As has been said already, if a group or organisation does not already exist locally that is no good reason why the provision should not be included in the Bill. We found it necessary to set up in our area a parents' group from which, I hope, others have received benefit, as we ourselves benefited from it. That structure exists for the future. If there is a provision in legislation to encourage the establishment of such groups or associations it will be easier to ensure that parents who find out for the first time that they have a handicapped child are able to resort to them.
  In the context of new clause 1 there are a few points to which I should like to refer in detail. There is the responsibility of the area health authority not only to pass on to the education authority and to parents the information that there will be a need, or a probable need, for special educational assistance, but to determine whether such a likelihood exists. Obviously the information cannot be passed on either to the parents or to the local authority at the earliest possible stage if the health authority has not done everything possible to determine whether or not there is a likelihood of there being a special need.
  In the broadest context of the term, that means that there is a need for screening not only from the age of upwards but prior to birth, so that any handicap or

  423
  potential handicap can be identified at a very early age. Such is the condition of our two handicapped children that their educational potential may have been greatest in their earliest years. Such children may hit an educational peak, then a plateau, and then a stage of decline. That decline may have set in by the age of 5. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the problem at the age of 0, 1 or 2 in order to take the maximum benefit from the educational potential at that age, so that it can be consolidated before a decline sets in. Unless that is done the opportunities will have been lost.
  There is a need for information to be transferred. The only real help that we had when we had to face the special educational needs of our children was from a third party, who had no greater status than that he happended to be a friend of the family and my political agent. This was in the first few weeks after the 1974 election, when I became a Member of Parliament. My friend had the good sense to press us strongly to get in contact with the education authority about special educational needs. Even when one knows that one's child is handicapped and one has been told by doctors that he is likely to need special education at a later stage, one is still likely to say "Let us try him in an ordinary school in the hope that the forecast will not materialise and he will develop like other children." Parents of handicapped children need guidance and help from the experience of others at that critical stage to make the right decision. The decision may go against the grain at that time, but with hindsight parents will identify it as having been the right one.
  There are two important points. First, there is the responsibility of health authorities to identify positively those who need help. I take it that the words in the new clause 1,
  "in the course of exercising any of its functions"
  cover that. If it is within the scope of the Minister's portfolio, I should like him to confirm that. Secondly, there is the need for a positive initiative, in the most relaxed and sensitive way, to give parents the information under paragraph (a) of the new clause. It is important not only that the information is given but that there is then the triggering off of teamwork to bring together the health authority, doctors, nurses, the specialist, the paediatrician, the social workers and the educational input, and that there is a named person to whom the parents can turn.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: May I bring up the term "multi-disciplinary team" which we threw around in Committee? Is the hon. Gentleman asking the Minister to include in the guidelines the essential need for a multi-disciplinary team to assess the needs of the under-five child and say what action is to be taken?
  Mr. Wigley: I am. I am aware of the comments made on this point in the Warnock committee's report. I do not see how the intentions of the clause, which I understand the Government are likely to accept, can work properly without the existence of a multi-disciplinary team. It is necessary for the proper functioning of the clause and for all the responsibilities under the Bill and other legislation. There is a crying need for it, and for the parents involved to be able to relate to a person who puts them in touch with a team that is aware of the various aspects of the difficulties faced by the child. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention. It underlines the point that I am coming to—the need for the parents to be able to relate to people with expertise in the various facets of the problem.
  424
  There is need for a positive initiative by the local authority. We have identified the handicap, we have informed the parents and discussed it, we have a support mechanism for those parents and, we have informed the local authority of the problem. There then needs to be a positive lead from the local authority. It is so easy for the parents to sit back and avoid facing the reality of the problem. Therefore, the local education authority must take a more positive line in making suggestions, giving the parents supportive help, and making facilities available in addition to those made available for ordinary children where such "hang-ups" do not exist.
  Those three aspects are important. If the benefits that will come from the thinking behind the clause are to be fully realised, the suggestions that I have made need to be accepted.
  Mr. Frank Field: I shall come to the powerful theme of the speech of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), but I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) on the way in which he introduced this important clause. I am sure that he will forgive me if I concentrate most of my attention on the comments of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). To sum up his contribution—several hon. Members have touched on the theme of it—if we are to prevent handicap from becoming more serious we have to act quickly, and that is what the clause is about.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles reminded us of the importance of the period before birth. I want to remind the House of the importance of the period of birth and the days after birth. As a result of the work done by Geoffrey Chamberlain, we know that a child who does not breathe within the first three minutes of birth will begin to suffer irreparable damage to the central nervous system. At that point it is necessary to take action to limit, if not to overcome, the handicap. The spirit of the clause takes on that information. Let us learn as soon as possible and then try to act to minimise the effect of the handicap.
  4.45 pm
  There are two parts to the clause. First, there is the duty to inform parents and, secondly, there is a duty on the area or district health authority to inform the local education authority. We are now in the later stages of our discussions on a major Bill dealing with the education of handicapped children and young people. Will the Under-Secretary tell us what a local authority will be able to do under the Bill that it could not do before for parents who have a handicapped child of whom the authority will be informed by the area and district health authority.
  New clause 2 is designed to help parents and, by helping parents, to help handicapped children. It is about telling those parents of the other organisations and voluntary bodies that will be able to help them. In his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) on 26 May the Under—Secretary gave two reasons why the clause would not work: first, because there is no uniform network of support throughout the country, and, secondly, because voluntary bodies are not the right bodies to give parents the news about the handicap of their child. I hope that the Secretary of State is clear, from all the contributions that have been made, that no one wants voluntary bodies to give that information to parents.
  We are saying that parents who have been through the trauma of realising that their child is handicapped have a

  425
  knowledge that no one else has, and that that knowledge should be shared with parents who find themselves in the same position. To argue that that cannot be done over the whole of the country is profoundly anti-Tory. The Minister is posing the Utopian solution—when we have a perfect way forward, we will adopt it. That is the argument that we normally expect to hear from the Opposition, not from the Government. The argument from the Conservative side is usually "Let us build on what we have and improve as we go along". That is good, old-fashioned, Tory sense.
  It is surprising that the Under-Secretary of State should say that in his letter. I am sure that he had a copy of the letter that MENCAP distributed to Members of the Committee and to other hon. Members who were interested in this subject. The association said that to start by giving this special responsibility to voluntary bodies might improve the service that they can give. The association has also said that it has no wish to have the responsibility of telling parents the first news about the handicap of their child.
  I understand that the Government smile on new clause 1, but have doubts about new clause 2. We want the Under-Secretary of State to think carefully about the arguments that have been put in the debate. That is what I intended to say before I rose to my feet. We have now had the benefit of hearing the hon. Member for Caernarvon, who made a powerful contribution of a kind that few of us could have made. I hope that on the basis of that contribution alone the Minister will say that the Government will examine this idea and perhaps report more favourably in another place. If he cannot give us that undertaking, we shall press new clause 2 to a Division.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): We have had a good debate. There was also a good debate in Committee on the various factors in the Bill. All members of that Committee were concerned about what was happening to children below the age of 50. There was also much concern about the 16 to 19-year-olds, but were particularly concerned about the children in the former group.
  Everyone who has spoken today has done so with genuine concern. I quote as an example my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) gave me a little lesson on Toryism. I am always prepared to learn. The idea was that we do not wait for a utopian society, but progress step by step. I commend to the House the Government's attitude, which is completely within that philosophy. We must not go too far at the beginning. We must not put at risk the advances that we are making. We must create a climate of opinion that will take us on further. When I listened to the hon. Member for Birkenhead I realised how much of what he said was the Government's philosophy in the clauses that we are discussing.
  Because of the debate in Committee we said that we would consider the matter and see what we could do for children under the age of 5. Reference has been made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) to that debate and to what I said.
  I said:
  426
  "New clause 2 is nearer to what we can accept than new clause 1 … The Government have no objection to the principle or to the new clause imposing on health authorities a requirement to a inform both the parent and the local education authority at the earliest possible time and, one trusts, with the degree of compassion that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely this morning, of the special needs of that child."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 2 April 1981; c. 478]
  New clause 1 says that the parent and the local education authority must be informed. I do not think that anyone would disagree with that sequence of events. It is basically the duty of the health authority to break the news first. The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), who spoke so feelingly and sensibly on the matter, will agree with me. This is a considerable advance on what existed before, when there was a large gap. We have tried to do what we can to cover that gap.
  The local health authority must notify the parents if there is a handicap. The hon. Member for Caernarvon asked me for an assurance that that was part of the duties of the local health authority. That is so and I shall reply to that point. It is not a duty for that authority to screen all children. However, the Bill will make it a duty, if the child crosses its path, as it were, or if the authority examines the child. Once that happens the authority will have a responsibility to see the parents and to inform them and the local education authority. The hon. Member for Birkenhead asked what difference that made. Having received that information, it is the responsibility of the local education authority to do something about it.
  That responsibility did not exist before. We shall see how far that responsibility goes. There is now a difference of onus of responsibility. The authority is informed, because the risk is that in the bureaucracies that build up in our society, in large bodies, one section has information and another has not. This attempt was within the philosophy towards the Bill and was agreed by both sides of the Committee, as I am sure it will be agreed here.
  There are two factors. The parent is particularly important. We have enshrined far more powers than previously in the Bill. Secondly, we have said that the local education authority can now do something about the matter.
  If the House accepts new clause 1, which I commend, our Department will consult the Secretary of State for Social Services on the content of post-legislative guidance to ensure that health authorities appreciate the provisions of that clause—which applies not only to children between the ages of 2 and 5 but to small babies—and the ramifications of what is being done. That matter was raised by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones). The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), who is absent today on other duties, spoke to me about the matter. He was involved, as well as the hon. Members for Eccles and Exeter. We helped with the drafting so that an advance could be made.
  The Government cannot accept new clause 2 as it stands. There are two factors in new clause 2. The first is that it is proposed that it should be the duty of the National Health Service to acquaint the parents of a handicap at birth of or on identification of the handicap. No one objects to the identification of the handicap. There may be a difference of opinion about the timing. The second factor

  427
  is that the NHS shall acquaint the parents of the existence and whereabouts of a support organisation after six weeks, in writing.
  Therefore, the first factor is the question of the parent being informed almost at the point of birth. The second factor was referred to by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). That factor is informing the parents about the support organisations that are available.
  Mr. Beith: The clause deals only with informing the parents of the existence of appropriate support organisations. It names two times when that can be done. We can argue about whether the times are precisely right, but that is all that the clause is about.
  Dr. Boyson: The clause refers to informing the parents about those organisations after six weeks, in writing. One cannot inform the parents of that unless they have been informed about the handicap in the first place. Therefore, the first point is subsumed. The clause specifies the time of identification. It does not leave it to the sensibility of the health authority to do that as soon as possible, which I am sure would be the view of most hon. Members.
  Despite our respect for the support organisations and the good work that they do, we do not feel that the local education authority or the health authority should be tied down to provide that information. We feel that in cases where that is advisable, that will be done. When drafting a Bill, there is always a risk of over-legislating. Time and again the local education authorities have raised the matter of the amount of legislation in the Bill. There is nothing to stop a local education authority or the health authority informing parents about support organisations at the moment. That practice could be developed. We do not feel that it is necessary to put it in legislation. The clause says that the Nation al Health Service must acquaint the parents of the handicap and of the whereabouts of the support organisation at a certain time. That is what we disagree about.
  With regard to timing, if the mother is suffering from post-natal depression I do not believe that the enforced time of information bound to apply under new clause 2 would be ideal for the parents to be acquainted of the handicap. I shall return to the question of timing, because timing is specified in new clause 2. The hon. Member for Birkenhead suggests that I should take it out, but at least I am talking about information being given at a certain time, which is in the clause.
  There should be flexibility in building on a better practice. What we have done in accepting new clause 2, which I trust the House will accept—[HON. MEMBERS: "New clause 1."] I meant to say new clause 1. I was brought up on the tables and I immediately move on from 1 to 2. Before the House becomes too alarmed or too enthusiastic about that, I shall rephrase it. I hope that the House will accept new clause 1.
  Mr. Kinnock: The hon. Gentleman has just informed me of what he is doing. At 8 am, when we have gone right through the night, he usually sounds as if he is on his 163 times table.
  I wish to ask the hon. Member about some matters concerning new clause 2. Does his rooted objection arise solely because of timing? Would he be prepared to consider another form of amendment that removed the problem of trying to specify the time too closely?
  428
  My second point arises specifically from what he said. While mothers suffer post-natal depression, even in the event of producing children who have no obvious handicap of any description or any special educational needs, physiologically and psychologically, fathers do not. Fathers are extremely important in the process of post-natal adjustment to the difficulties that may arise for new parents as a consequence of having a child with obvious needs.
  Thirdly, had we been able to rely on local education authorities, area health authorities or any statutory body, to ensure that parents knew of the support organisations, hon. Members would not have gone to the trouble to table an amendment specifically requiring that the duty be laid. Is the hon. Gentleman not aware, first, of the importance of support organisations and, secondly, of the need, without over-legislating, for a system that will ensure that the necessary information reaches parents likely to be affected?
  5 pm
  Mr. Carter-Jones: I asked whether the hon. Gentleman could show in the guidelines the requirement that the information should also refer to neonates. He agreed, and at the same time nodded. We should have that gesture on the record and in the guidelines. Will he give a firm undertaking that in the other place a subsection (c) will be added to new clause 1 to the effect that the authority shall also be responsible for informing parents of the whereabouts of voluntary organisations? It would overcome the difficulty. The guidelines would cover neonates and deal with the six-week period, and new clause 1(c) would cover the other point. I trust the hon. Gentleman. The House would accept an undertaking from him.
  Dr. Boyson: I gave way to the hon. Member for Bedwelty (Mr. Kinnock) and then to the hon. Member for Eccles, as I know that everyone has the best interest of children and parents at heart. We shall consider the suggestion of the hon. Member for Eccles before the Bill goes to the other place to see whether it should be a duty on health authorities to inform parents of local support organisations, but I cannot say more than that.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: The other assurance that I should like is that the guidelines will contain a reference to neonates, which will meet the six-week argument. A neonate could be a newly born child, without definition of time.
  Dr. Boyson: The hon. Gentleman is naughty. He pushes me further and further. He is a greater expert on neonates than I. I had to draw on my classical education to analyse what the word meant. I had never before used it, so I had to practice how to pronounce it. I can go no further than my assurance that we shall consider his suggestion about support organisations. Later guidance involves other Departments. We consulted the Department of Health and Social Security before the clause was drafted, so we had its full co-operation.
  Mr. Field: Will the hon. Gentleman state clearly what he is offering? He has said that he will look again at new clause 2 before it goes to the other place, so what has been said this afternoon to lead him to believe that it is worth

  429
  while to reconsider? We do not want to miss the chance to vote on the new clause and then find that nothing happens.
  Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is moving to a position that we might all find acceptable. He left the Committee and the voluntary organisations with the clear impression that he welcomed the principle of informing parents, and he has addressed himself today to legitimate arguments about timing. The new clause is tabled in the same form as in Committee, because so far the hon. Gentleman has not been able to use the Department's drafting skills to incorporate the principle, which he is prepared to accept, in new clause 1. There is an opportunity in another place to include the principle in the ramifications of the Bill in a clear form. That is what we all seek, and I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman will argue against it.
  Dr. Boyson: The last thing that I want to do is to mislead the House. Apart from my sense of honour, we shall all meet again tomorrow.
  I give an assurance that before the Bill goes to the other place we shall see whether we can include in new clause
  1 a provision that local health authorities have the responsibility to inform parents or local support organisations when they inform them of the child's handicap. I do not believe that we shall disagree about timing, and the hon. Member for Eccles made a suggestion about that.
  I was asked why I had given the undertaking. It is a non-party Bill, and we are not trying to bulldoze it through the House. We have tried to get the Bill right, within financial and other restraints. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been helpful this afternoon, and from their experience hon. Members believe that the matter may be of greater importance than we originally thought. Accordingly, it would be remiss if we failed to respond.
  I commend new clause 1 to the House, and, although I cannot commend new clause 2, I have given an undertaking to look at the matter before the Bill goes to another place.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: This has been an interesting and rewarding debate. Sometimes there is a bonanza and one gets a large piece of salami. At others, it has to come slice by slice. We have won a slice today. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) tells me that our debate will be read and noted in the other place. I accept the Minister's word. He is an honourable man.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8

  NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
  '1.—(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a National Advisory Committee on Special Educational Needs to act as a consultative and advisory body and to report annually to the Secretary of State according to the following terms of reference:

  (a) to consult with the Departments of Education and Science, Health and Social Security, Employment and other relevant agencies to ensure the proper co-ordination of special educational provision at national and local level;

  (b) to advise and consult with local education authorities on the provision for meeting special educational needs within their area with particular regard to the best deployment of existing services;

  430

  (c) to issue guidelines on the provision for special educational need and disseminate examples of good practice;

  (d) to monitor the working of this Act;

  (e) to instigate and promote research into the provision of special educational needs and matters relating thereto.

  (2) The Secretary of State shall lay the report of the National Advisory Committee before both Houses of Parliament.
  (3) The Secretary of State shall appoint the members of the Committee aforesaid to serve for such periods as he thinks fit, bearing in mind the desirability of including as members thereof handicapped persons and parents of handicapped children.'.—[Mr. Hannam.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Hannam: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  We discussed the principle of the new clause towards the end of our proceedings in Committee. It aims to put important icing on the cake of special education. It would establish a national advisory committee, which everyone wants and which in principle the Government have accepted can be provided, although they do not want to provide it in this legislation.
  All the arguments for such a national advisory committee on special education were strongly expressed by witnesses at our three Special Standing Committee sittings. I thought that the use of the Select Committee procedure for those three sittings was extremely valuable and should be adopted on other occasions. Evidence from all the witnesses strongly supported the establishment of a national advisory committee, as did members of the Committee and all the organisations which wrote to us. This was especially due to the lack of resources which we all accepted as necessitating a gradualist approach by local authorities at they develop the system that we all wish to see.
  The establishment of such a committee was also a recommendation of the Warnock report. Indeed, Mary Warnock herself wrote to me from Oxford reiterating her strong support for such a committee. Her letter, dated 30 April, states:
  "I want to let you know that the Committee of Inquiry into the education of the Handicapped, at its weekend discussions last week came unanimously to the conclusion that there really must be a National Advisory Committee established as a statutory body, to advise Ministers, monitor educational practice, bring together people from different professions and initiate research—as we recommended in our report."
  No one would deny that the establishment of such a committee to consult local authorities on the implementation of the legislation is essential to successful integration. The Government have faced the problems of resources for the implementation of the legislation and have been unable to set aside any extra resources. They have said clearly and correctly, however, that much progress can be made towards better use of existing resources and the extension of good practice, as indeed we argued throughout the Committee stage. That may be true, but it is difficult to see how this can be achieved, given the great variation between local authorities, without some overall co-ordinating and advisory body.
  The Government have also said that they do not consider that an advisory committee is necessary at this stage. I believe that many of the problems that require the establishment of such a body at later stage could be avoided if it were established now to consult and advise local education authorities. In Committee the Government gave a commitment to call a conference of professional

  431
  and voluntary organisations concerned with special education to discuss the possible establishment of an advisory committee.
  Since then, those voluntary organisations, RADAR and those of us who discussed the matter with them have concluded that the position is unsatisfactory. The views of the voluntary and professional organisations are clear. They strongly support the establishment of a national advisory committee. The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, the National Council of Women and all the various organisations for the disabled and handicapped, as well as Mary Warnock and her committee, still strongly express their continued support for the establishment of such a committee.
  5.15 pm
  Secondly, to be effective, such a committee must have clearly defined statutory duties such as consulting local education authorities on the provision for meeting special educational needs, issuing guidelines on such provision, as well as monitoring the working of the Act and reporting to the Secretary of State.
  I shall not go into detail, as I did in Committee, on all the other reasons why we need a committee to establish good practice throughout the country, with the use of multi-disciplinary committees and teams, for the introduction, often in difficult circumstances, of special education for the 18 per cent. who will be required to receive education other than at special schools.
  This is a complicated and technical area which will require extra advice to willing recipients among the education authorities. We are not trying to pour water through a stone. Education authorities will be willing to help in the development of the system.
  I understand and support the Government's policy of reluctance to create new quangos for the sake of it, but I do not think that that would be the case in this instance. A children's committee already exists, embracing many disciplines and duties that we would ask the new national advisory committee to undertake. The chairman of the children's committee is Dr. Brimblecombe, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and I know well as a leading paediatrician in Devon. He has pioneered much of the work in establishing new systems of communication for the education of severely handicapped children.
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: He is internationally known.
  Mr. Hannam: As my hon. Friend says, he is internationally known. Dr. Brimblecombe met the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and myself at the House to discuss whether, if the Government accepted the principle of a national advisory committee but remained reluctant to set up a new body, the children's committee, through a sub-committee, could embrace the work that would be required. We discussed the matter in some detail and he was most willing to undertake such a responsibility if the Government so required.
  The Government's only real defence against the new clause seems to be that it would establish a new quango. If they accepted the principle, however, it would be possible to use an existing, well-established body, the children's committee, and to work with the DHSS to allow it to extend its activities to cover the duties required of a national advisory committee.
  432
  I believe that most of us in the House and all the organisations involved do not accept that the introduction of the system of special education can be successfully carried out without such an advisory body. We should like the Government to agree to set up a special advisory committee. If they cannot do that, however, I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the alternative to which I have referred of using an existing organisation, such as the children's committee, for the purpose.
  I hope that we shall hear some thoughts from the Government about what is considered by all those concerned, from Mary Warnock and her committee through all the national organisations and all members of the Standing Committee, as one of the most important questions still remaining. I hope that the Government will consider this carefully. If they can accept the new clause today we shall, of course, be satisfied. If not, I hope that they will consider the alternative suggestion of using the children's committee.
  Mr. Field: I rise once again to support the arguments of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). I wish to put two questions to the Secretary of State. If the Government maintain that it is unnecessary to establish a national advisory committee, will the right hon. Gentleman consider carefully the functions listed in new clause 8 which we wish the national advisory committee to have and tell us how and by whom they will be carried out? I think that he will find it difficult to argue that those functions are not important to the operation of the Bill, which, we hope, will shortly become an Act.
  If my memory is correct, whoever drafted the Bill cribbed generously from the Warnock report. The Secrertary of State should bear in mind the comments made by the chairman and members of the Warnock committee since publication, as well as our debates in Committee, about the key importance of establishing a national advisory committee. If no such body is established, who will take responsibility for co-ordinating policy between Government Departments?
  When the Under-Secretary of State replied to the debate on new clauses 1 and 2, I found very significant the stress that he placed on the co-ordination that he had had to undertake between Departments before he could reply. Therefore, the function of co-ordinating at a national level is clearly important. Who is to be responsible from now on for that co-ordination.
  Secondly, if there is no new national advisory committee, who will be the link with local authorities after there has been co-ordination between Government Departments?
  Thirdly, if there is no national advisory committee, who will have the responsibility for spreading good practice? I stress that, because in the course of the trips that I have started to make around the schools one of the things that has struck me is the importance of understanding the genesis of success in a school and how we can spread it.
  We read a great deal in our newspapers about schools that are not performing very well. Indeed, we often hear something about them at Question Time. We do not seem to spend enough time thinking about how to spread success. How do we learn from the little school across the road, St. Matthew's, in Westminster? On walking through

  433
  the door it is obvious that it is a humming successful school. How can other schools face the problems that that school used to face and overcome them?
  There is no mechanism for spreading success. There are many organs for spreading gloom and doom, but not for spreading the good news. [Interruption.] It would appear that I am perhaps convincing the Secretary of State and that I need not continue, but for the sake of completeness I should like to persevere with him. There might also be other doubters in the House. If there is no national advisory committee, who will spread the success that many of us have seen in schools in our constituencies and elsewhere? This is an immensely important function and I do not know of any body that undertakes it at the present time.
  It is crucial, with a Bill that has no money resolution attached to it, that we should try to live by our wits. That should be the short title of the Bill. New clause 8 will help us to live by our wits. Who, otherwise, will carry out the function that I have described?
  Fourthly, if there is no new body to carry out the function of monitoring the success or otherwise of this legislation, who will be responsible for monitoring and carrying back to the House the effects of that monitoring, so that we can try to improve what the Government are proposing in the education that we offer to some of our children?
  The hon. Member for Exeter suggested that we should try to understand the difficulties of a Government with a clear manifesto commitment about quangos. There is a lesson here for all of us, because manifesto commitments can lead to difficulties in areas unrelated to the usual thrust of Government policy. Why not build on what we have? There is a children's committee, chaired by a distinguished doctor. Rather than set up a new body, perhaps a more satisfactory solution would be to build on the existing order.
  I make that plea to the Secretary of State, not because I am trying to wear Tory clothes at this stage of the debate—indeed, I shall lose this job very quickly if I do so, having already used similar arguments in discussing two other amendments—but because in discussing the first two new clauses we were very much concerned with relaying to parents the first news about the handicap of their child. Such parents face pressures that other parents do not face. In that sense, one could say that the parents of handicapped children act in relation to all parents almost in the way that a barium meal acts in relation to an X-ray, because the group of which we take least notice in our society is the family, whether it be rich or poor.
  We desperately need a body to speak with authority on behalf of families. There is a powerful case for saying that one of the institutions that we wish to build up—an institution that is separate from the Government and can speak with authority, and does not shut up because the Government, of whatever party, would like it to shut up—is the children's committee, chaired and staffed by distinguished people. I hope that when the Secretary of State replies to the debate we shall find that he has been persuaded by the arguments of the hon. Member for Exeter, and perhaps by some of my arguments. If he rejects all of them, I hope that he will address himself carefully to the four or so questions that I have posed.
  434
  If there is no appropriate body, who is to carry out the key functions that were listed by Mrs. Warnock in her report and which she thought were crucial to the effectiveness of the report or its becoming a legislative fact? If the Minister is negative in his response, and if the hon. Member for Exeter wishes to register the importance of the new clause, some of us on the Opposition Benches will join him in the Lobby.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) because I have been considerably depressed, in such contacts as I have had during the passage of the Bill, by the narrowness of the experience within the Department of Education and Science of some aspects covered by the Bill.
  It has been clear to me that defensive fortifications have been erected to conceal a lack of practical knowledge. This is not something that we can live with bearing in mind that we are legislating in this area probably for the last time for some years. We need now to make the Bill as comprehensive as we can.
  Some of the provisions of the Bill will come into law by ministerial regulation, not one word of which can be amended by the House—a fact that is sometimes overlooked. It is, therefore, all the more necessary that there should be a continuing, broadly based and broadly experienced monitoring body which extends far outside the skills existing in the Department of Education and Science, whose shortcomings have become obvious to hon. Members on each side of the House during the passage of the Bill.
  My hon. Friend alluded to Dr. Brimblecombe, who is not merely of national status but who for many years has spent a significant time each year in the Sudan, advising the Government of the Sudan on their priorities in the organisation of paediatric health and therapy. I could not think of anyone better fitted to lead such a committee.
  The reason why I have intervened is that, although later today we shall come to a group of amendments that draw particular attention to the quite different circumstances attached to psychiatric hospitals in particular, the subject is relevant at this stage. The need for those amendments has arisen from the inability of the Department of Education and Science to recognise the greatly differing circumstances encompassed by the different types of educational provision which need to be made subject to the Bill and, indeed, which existed before the Bill came before the House.
  However carefully the Bill is drafted, and however carefully Ministers consider it in the light of the debates both in this House and in the other place, it will not achieve the aims of Ministers or of this House without broadly based monitoring. After all, the Bill goes to some pains in terms of multi-disciplinary teams to carry out some of its provisions. The one thing lacking is multi-disciplinary monitoring of the Bill's whole structure.
  5.30 pm
  The logic that applies to the multi-disciplinary team must apply to monitoring. I repeat that that is necessary, because the House will be largely impotent to perform that function. Much of the crucial regulation will be done by ministerial order, which cannot be amended by the House. In the discussion stage before any changes are made in the regulations, or—one would hope—before the regulations are drafted, there should be a body that has current and

  435
  diverse experience. I stress that that body should not be an internal part of the Department of Education and Science, because it is becoming apparent that that Department has severe shortcomings.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle): We shall deal later with the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I assure him that any differences of opinion that may be held at the end of that debate will not arise as a result of any shortcomings in the Department or from any disagreement about the Bill's purpose. If there is a disagreement between my hon. Friend and myself, it may centre on the legal effect of the words in the Bill and the implications of that aspect of the Bill for one type of special school. However, I hope to deal with that later. In addition, I hope to reach an amicable agreement with my hon. Friend on the issues that are of concern to both of us.
  I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my next remarks will not be out of order. I have read the report of the Committee proceedings. As this is the first time that I have had the opportunity to speak since the Second Reading, I should like to say that I am grateful to all those who served on that Committee for the constructive way in which the debates were conducted. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said, we are not involved in party polemics. We are trying, within the constraints that the Government have set on the use of resources, to put on the statute book a Bill that will help with the genuine and human problems that disabled children face.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) for all that he has done. Equally, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), who has tabled an amendment that derives from others that he moved in Committee, for the work that he has done. As my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter said, in Committee we discussed whether it was right to have a national advisory committee and whether the new clause would achieve that end. I shall take those two aspects separately. The short answer to the new clause is that I do not need the power proposed in it to set up such a committee. I am advised that under section 1 of the Education Act 1944 I have the power to set up, if I should think it appropriate, such a body. Therefore, there is no need to incorporate such a power in the Bill or to attempt to set out in statutory form that committee's detailed terms of reference. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that, whatever dicision may be taken about the committee, the new clause is not necessary.
  I should mislead the House and answer only part of the debate if I did not answer the second question. Is it necessary to have a national advisory committee at this stage? I have not closed my mind to the idea of some form of national advisory committee at some stage. Under the 1944 Act I have the power to appoint one. Equally, I have not been persuaded by what I have read of the Special Standing Committee's proceedings or by what I have heard today that there is a need to set up such a committee. I stand by what was said in the White Paper, which was printed last August. We said that many bodies gave the Government advice on this matter—they are set out in paragraph 64—and that we were not convinced of the need to set up an additional advisory committee.
  Mrs. Warnock wrote not only to my hon. Friend, but to me. She repeated that such a committee was desirable.
  436
  As she was responsible for the report and has great knowledge of the subject, one must consider her arguments. Given that debate and her letter, I reconsidered the matter, but I still do not believe that it is necessary, at this stage, to set up a national advisory committee. As my hon. Friend accepted, one does not wish to set up additional boards of a quasi Government nature unless they are essential. Therefore, we should use our existing machinery.
  The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) asked how we would deal with the various points raised by this important new clause if we did not set up such a body. He asked who would co-ordinate policy between Government Departments. An advisory committee can never carry out the role of co-ordinating policy between Government Departments. Only Government Departments and the organisations that they create can co-ordinate policy. If hon. Members think about that, they will agree that that must be right. As the Department of Education and Science is clearly the lead Department, that role must fall to it. That applies equally to the second question.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: Is that not an incestuous sort of arrangement, that co-ordination must be between Government Departments? Why do the Government not bring in some fresh blood from outside to look at the way in which the system works? Would that not bring a breath of fresh air to the considerations?
  Mr. Carlisle: I do not think that the hon. Member is applying his mind to the same question that I thought I was being asked, which is who is responsible for co-ordinating the work of Government Departments. I do not see that one can have an outside advisory body that is responsible for that co-ordination. That must be done by arrangements between Government bodies. No one disputes that at some stage one can have an individual to review relationships between Government bodies as a whole, but the responsibility for the successful co-ordination of Government policy must, in the end, be that of the lead Department. The fact that one has an advisory committee does not remove the responsibility from that lead Department.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: The right hon. and learned Gentleman answered my question when he added an adjective. He referred to "successful" co-ordination. He had previously spoken about "co-ordination". I suggested that there was no real co-ordination between Departments and that they might be shaken if outside people made observations about their unsuccessful co-ordination.
  Mr. Carlisle: I shall speak about outside people in a moment. Part of my argument is that a good many outside bodies are already involved.
  The hon. Member for Birkenhead asked who was responsible for links with local authorities. One must remember that one of the important aspects of the Bill is that it lays clear duties on local authorities in their dealings with children with special educational needs to identify them, in certain cases to make statements about them and to make adequate provision for them.
  Under the 1944 Act the Department of Education and Science has a responsibility to ensure that local authorities carry out their statutory duties. Under that Act the Department and the Secretary of State for Education and Science have a responsiblity to ensure that local authorities

  437
  are carrying out their statutory responsibility and can be asked to intervene if they are failing to carry out that statutory responsibility. My answer to the second question is that one cannot ensure that a local authority carries out its statutory responsibility by the appointment of an advisory committee, which itself does not have statutory powers. This can be done only by the Department of Education and Science using its powers under the 1944 Act.
  The third question is fair. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter has raised it on previous occasions. It involves the need to disseminate good practice. In passing, I might add how much I agree with the hon. Member for Birkenhead, that we too often fail to pay tribute to the amount of good work carried out in many parts of our institutions.
  5.45 pm
  When I go round special schools—I am sure that the hon. Member and many other hon. Members feel the same way—I come away humbled, impressed and grateful, on behalf of others, for the work and dedication of the staff who work there. There is a magnificent happiness inside many of those institutions. Of course there is the task of spreading good practice, but the purpose of having an inspectorate working through and with the Department is that it can cover the country and visit and examine individual schools. Only part of its task is spreading good practice.
  Paragraph 64 of the White Paper says:
  "The Secretary of State can already draw on a wide range of advice and expertise … from HM Inspectorate, DHSS, the Schools Council, the Council for Educational Technology, the National Foundation for Educational Research and the Welsh Joint Educational Committee, as well as the teachers' and local authority associations, professional groups, voluntary bodies, and parents through the many bodies representing specific conditions of handicap".
  Realistically, the opportunity to be advised, to receive advice and to carry out the proposals set out in the new clause is already met by the existing institutions and bodies.
  The final question asked by the hon. Member for Birkenhead was: who would monitor? The only person who can monitor the success or otherwise and the implementation of an Act of Parliament is the Department responsible for carrying that Act through. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton asked how Parliament controlled that monitoring. I do not believe that it can be controlled by asking me to set up a national advisory committee with its membership appointed by the Department. Parliament controls monitoring because it has the power to question myself and my colleague Ministers at the Dispatch Box, to put down questions and to have Adjournment debates on the procedure and success of the Bill.
  I accept the views that Mrs. Warnock has repeated in a letter to me. Despite the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter, and faced with the advice that already exists within the Warnock report and the responsibility for monitoring the implementation of the Bill which inevitably falls on the Department and the battery of various individual advising bodies that I already have, I have tried to explain why it would not be correct to set up a new body at this time.
  Mr. Field: I forgot that I was addressing my argument to a lawyer. I should have been more precise with my language. The Minister was correct to reprimand me for thinking of the body as one that would initiate the functions. I was making a plea—I thought the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) was making the same plea—that we should have a watchdog body that would see that this was being done in Whitehall
  Does the Secretary of State realise where his argument has taken him? He is now telling the House and the country that Whitehall knows best, trust Whitehall. In the 1940s my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) coined a phrase that has hung round this party for a long time, with derivations on it about Daddy knowing best and Whitehall knowing best. The plea made by the hon. Member for Exeter, which I supported, was for a plural society. However good or bad Departments are at carrying out those functions, it is crucial that one body should have the responsibility across the range of Departments and between the Government and local authorities, and on the issue of good practice it should, above all, have no other responsibilities than to see that those functions are being carried out. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct to reprimand me for the language I used, but it was a plea for a watchdog body and not a body to take over the functions of Whitehall or local authorities.
  Mr. Carlisle: I did not intend to reprimand the hon. Gentleman. I was simply putting the other side of the argument. I accept that the body would be a watchdog, and I was not suggesting that Whitehall knew best. I was trying to say that it inevitably had the statutory responsibility for certain aspects of what we proposed and that I believed that there were many outside people already in the field who had views on the matter and were in a portion to collect the information on good practice that the hon. Gentleman needs.
  I welcome the role of voluntary bodies. I was sorry to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter say that he doubted whether the conference of voluntary bodies would be of any value. I repeat what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in Committtee, namely, that we would genuinely welcome a conference of the voluntary bodies concerned—and fairly soon after the Bill reaches the statute book—to discuss problems that might arise over implementation of the Act and co-ordination between the voluntary bodies on advice that they might wish to give us.
  I am told that there are already the Voluntary Council for Handicapped Children and the National Council for Special Education. I believe that we could together organise a system by which, without our setting up a new advisory council, the views of the voluntary bodies could be co-ordinated among themselves in a way that would assist the Government in the implementation of the Bill.
  I end where I started. I have not closed my mind, saying that there could never be a national advisory body. At times one's judgment is shown to be wrong, but for the moment I do not believe that it is necessary to have a national body. I believe that there is sufficient to be done and sufficient means of doing it, without such a body. If I or a successor of mine ever had a change of mind, the 1944 Act would permit the creation of such a body.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Secretary of State's reply was very disappointing. I had hoped that he would

  439
  at least accept the spirit of the clause, but his party's doctrinaire attitude towards quangos, rather than the needs of special education, seems to have dominated the Department's thinking.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that there is no need to set up a national advisory committee. In a sense, if he does not set one up, he is abolishing an existing national advisory body. The Government had the benefit of almost all the functions of a national advisory committee from the Warnock committee, which acted as a catalyst in the way in which a national advisory committee should work, in carrying out its inquiry, in the way in which it sought and set out the evidence, the way in which it produced its report, and the way in which the report was then discussed. Eventually, we had the Government's response, even if it was disappointing.
  I am not sure how it did so, but in a way the Warnock committee went on functioning after producing its report. By the time the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament, it will be difficult for the committee to go on functioning. However, I am not suggesting that we should allow the Warnock committee to merge into or become, even if with totally different personnel, a national advisory committee.
  The Government are abolishing something of which they have had the advantage for the past five or six years. I plead with the Minister to have second thoughts and establish for the benefit of all those concerned with special education a national advisory body with status and stature, a committee that can continue to perform the role that the Warnock committee has performed so successfully in the interim.
  Mr. Hannam: The contribution of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) was important, because he highlighted the fact that there has been a great input of information to this area of special education that will now inevitably decline and disappear unless something is put in its place.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said that the Bill was not the vehicle for legislating for an advisory committee, as the powers already existed in the 1944 Act. On Second Reading and in the White Paper the Government made it clear that they were not in principle opposed to such a committee, but that they did not believe that it was necessary now. Like other hon. Members, I have argued that it will be necessary.
  Under other legislation, such as the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, local authorities have not necessarily continued along the path that the Government wished. In fact, Ministers are at present taking legislative and oher action to try to achieve certain objectives that local authorities, with their autonomous position, do not wish to achieve. It is important that the discussion continues.
  Therefore, I welcome the repeated assurance of my right hon. and learned Friend that he would like at an early stage to call a conference of the voluntary organisations. I think that he will receive a clear message from them. I also believe that the matter will continue to be debated as the Bill proceeds through the other place.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that in this area of development the expertise from outside would be more important than that inside the Department. We already have a number of
  440
  important advisory committees, such as that dealing with the employment of disabled people. The children's committees are another example. They are advising the Minister and helping to monitor developments. There is also the Social Security Advisory Committee. All of these committees play a valuable role.
  I believe that the discussion will continue for some time. However, as the Bill is not the vehicle for legislation of this nature, as the powers exist, and it is therefore a matter of having to persuade the Government, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

  MEANING OF SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AND SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL PROVISION
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move amendment No. 2, page 1, leave out lines 13 to 17.
  I am naturally very grateful to Mr. Speaker for having now selected the amendment for debate. In moving what is a profoundly important amendment I speak on behalf of all my right hon. and hon. Friends, and, I believe, of many other hon. Members, in expressing warm appreciation of Mr. Speaker's prompt and helpful response to our request that the amendment should be considered.
  Like those of the Secretary of State, my interventions today are my first on the Bill since Second Reading. I join the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his tribute to members of the Standing Committee, whose work, as we have already seen today, has had some effect on the Government's thinking about the Bill. They have won no money, but it was always clear that they were unlikely to do so. Nevertheless, they have won some respect.
  The Bill provides that a child will be deemed to have a
  "learning difficulty"
  if
  "he suffers from a disability which either prevents or hinders him from making use of educational facilities".
  What are "educational facilities" and what is meant by
  "making use of educational facilities"?
  The Bill appears to allow a disabled child to be deemed to have a "learning difficulty" if a school is inaccessible, or if certain of its facilities, such as toilets, are inaccessible,or if a child needs help in going to the toilet. That is to confuse learning difficulties with the problems of access to buildings.
  Clause 1 will allow a local education authority to send a child to a special school, away from his friends and non-disabled peers, sometimes even away from home, merely because the bricks and mortar of the local school are unsuitable to his needs. Rather than widen a lavatory door or provide an occasional helper for a child, the Bill provides for a child to be excluded from his local school and to be sent away to a special school with children who have a wide variety of real learning difficulties. That is not educationally sound, and that is why the amendment is so important.
  There has been much too little effort since 1970 to make schools accessible to disabled children. If clause 1 is not amended, the Bill will allow children to be excluded from ordinary schools and to be segregated from other local children merely because the school is inaccessible. Rather than taking special action to make the school accessible,

  441
  the Bill classifies the child as having special learning difficulties. The child is to be made to fit the buildings when, clearly, the reverse would be the more humane procedure. We in the House must look to a future where the child's interests come first.
  6 pm
  It is often thought that adaptations to buildings that improve access for disabled people are not much good unless they are both comprehensive and costly. There will undoubtedly occasionally be considerable cost, but existing buildings can often be adapted at minor cost. I was recently at a church service in the Manchester area where the congregation had adapted the entrance to the church building so as to accept into their midst severely disabled people in wheelchairs who would otherwise have been excluded. They did so, not at modest cost, but at no cost at all except that of their own time and effort. As I said, there can be substantial costs in adapting some buildings, but disabled people are sometimes the victims of grandiose thinking. The proprietors of buildings should, if necessary, ask themselves whether minor adaptations to existing buildings might make all the difference between accepting or rejecting a disabled person.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I accept that this is an important argument, but how could any adaptation to a public building be made at nil cost?
  Mr. Morris: I would be ready to introduce the hon. Lady to the Rev. Chris Ford, the vicar of the church that I was visiting, whose congregation used some of the props of their theatrical group to make a moveable ramp for the front of the church and to enable disabled people to enter. They were thus using existing resources to adapt the building. They would not claim that it was a very impressive adaptation.
  My argument is that even a very minor adaptation can often make all the difference between accepting and rejecting a disabled person into the life of the community. That is a profoundly important consideration. Nevertheless, as I said, there can be quite substantial costs in adapting many existing buildings.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: A substantial ramp was installed at the new central library in Eccles, not for disabled people, but to assist the library staff to load and unload books. It so happens, however, that the ramp has turned out to be an extremely good access point for wheelchair users. If a school is in such a difficult situation that access is difficult, a ramp could ease the delivery of goods and services and the servicing of the building by the caretaker while providing easier access, incidentally, for disabled people. This happens frequently. Two simple ramps installed in the House have been a great success.
  Mr. Morris: From his considerable experience in these matters, my hon. Friend makes an important point. In helping disabled people we often help other groups. My hon. Friend instances library staff being assisted in their duties by the adaptation of the library in a way that has also helped disabled people. Often, by helping disabled people in wheelchairs we help young mothers with babies in prams. I must emphasise again, however, that many buildings require considerable expenditure to adapt and that the question of resources is important to this amendment.
  442
  It is not, however, true that the Government lack the resources to do what the amendment seeks. In fact, in a single day the Government crammed £1,400 million into the pockets of the richest 5 per cent. of taxpayers. Even while consulting their White Paper on Warnock, they found extra money for the assisted places scheme. Mary Warnock herself, in an article in The Times Educational Supplement on 13 March, found that as regrettable as I do. The assisted places scheme was a much higher spending priority for the Government than the Bill, and in her article Mary Warnock wrote:
  "If the present Government is prepared to say that £3 million (what is being spent on the Assisted Places Scheme) is chickenfeed, then they can find as much chickenfeed again for a different lot of chickens. Three million would come in extremely handy for funding a limited short-term pilot project of inservice training in schools, for the teaching of children with special needs …"
  It would also be extremely handy for adapting school buildings to make them more accessible to disabled children.
  In addressing you, Mr. Speaker, on my point of order earlier today I referred to the amendment moved for the Government in another place by the Earl of Mansfield on 2 June. The amendment strengthens the access provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 as they affect Scottish law, including section 8 of the Act, which covers schools and other educational buildings. That amendment is clearly of considerable importance to this debate. It is a development that should be taken fully into account here today. In particular, the Secretary of State now has an opportunity to let us know how the Government initiative in another place affects their thinking on access to schools and clause 1.
  The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) is promoting the Disabled Persons (No. 2) Bill in the present Session. I understand that the Government will be amending that Bill, too, in order to strengthen the access provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act as they apply to England and Wales. We should not ignore in this debate the effect of the initiatives being taken by the Government in another place.
  Access to the built environment is essential if disabled people are to participate in the normal activities of life. Such access is as crucial to the enjoyment of a full and fulfilling life as all the aids and practical help with which disabled people can be provided by a caring society. Our concern must be to win for disabled people the opportunities that everyone else takes for granted. I mean opportunities to work and to enjoy every kind of leisure pursuit.
  In breaking down architectural barriers we help the disabled to decide things for themselves, instead of always having decisions made for them. My experience is that there is nothing that more upsets the disabled than the condescension of the able-bodied towards them. I am frequently told that the biggest handicap that the disabled have to bear is the view taken of them by others.
  The amendment aims to ensure that disabled children are a part of and not apart from society and that, like other children, they can participate fully in the life of their local communities. That is a profoundly important objective, which I hope the House will endorse by approving the amendment.
  Dr. Boyson: I have too much respect for the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), as

  443
  another Lancastrian, to chase every statement that he made, such as that referring to the assisted places scheme. However, I must say that the average cost of comprehensive schools in Manchester is more than the average cost of its direct grant schools. Manchester would save money if it sent all its children to direct grant schools. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman and I could discuss that matter later and issue a joint statement.
  I agree with everything that the right hon. Gentleman said. I am glad to be able to say that. However, his amendment has nothing to do with the clause. His remarks refer more to the efficient use of resources. That would be the limiting factor. Clause 1 deals with the definition of "special educational needs". There is nothing that the right hon. Gentleman says with which I do not agree. I respect his work in this area. Indeed, many hon. Members have done a tremendous service to the disabled, and he is one of them.
  Any list of categories must exclude certain people. Previously, there was a list of 10 categories. The whole purpose of the Bill, following the Warnock report, is to examine the question of those with special educational needs. If children have a special educational need, what do we do about it? They are categorised in three ways in the Bill. Subsection (1) states:
  "For the purposes of this Act a child has special educational needs if he has a learning difficulty which calls for special educational provision to be made for him."
  As I am not a lawyer I have to depend on advice about these matters. I am told that that provision includes children with mental difficulties who are unable to keep up with others. We wanted to include those with physical handicaps in the provisions in the Bill. It is not a question of saving money. Physically handicapped persons must come within the scope of the Bill, because they would otherwise be disadvantaged, which would create further special educational needs. The blind, the deaf and the physically handicapped all come within the provisions of subsection (2) (b). The right hon. Member knows that such disabilities affect one-sixth of our society at any one time, and one-fifth during a lifetime. That is the philosophy of Warnock.
  The Bill helps us to examine the needs of handicapped persons, not with the aim of putting them into special schools—90 per cent. of them would not need special schools—but with the aim of discovering whether they can be accommodated within the normal system. If we removed subsection (2) (b) such people would not come within the remaining provisions. We would be left with paragraphs (a) and (c), which deal with the under-fives—whom we have already discussed—and those with mental disabilities. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe spoke impressively about the under-fives. All other handicapped persons who cannot easily be accommodated in normal schools—perhaps even children with partial hearing who need to sit at the front of the class—come within the provisions of subsection (2) (b). I accept that the wording could have been clearer, but I did not draft the Bill.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Our concern is that learning difficulties are being confused with access problems. When I tabled the amendment I consulted many experts in that area—they included people from organisations that have the Minister's respect and hon. Members from both
  444
  sides of the House. If there is any defect in the wording that can be improved by expert draftsmanship, we shall be glad to hear how that can be done. It is not our wish today to infuse animus into the debate. We want to make meaningful progress. If we could agree on some other form of wording, that would cause great delight on the Labour side of the House and also in the country.
  Dr. Boyson: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's helpful intervention. It is a question of listing those who come within the categorisation. If we are wrong we shall consider the matter again. However, that is our legal advice. What the right hon. Member and I have said this afternoon will be noted. We shall check the wording of the clause. Our information is that that is the only way in which to include the right categories of disabled people. It has nothing to do with buildings.
  I shall check the advice that I have given and ensure that it is right. There is time before the Bill goes to another place to put matters right. I know that when drafting the clause great difficulty was experienced in finding a way of including people without listing categories. It is not a simple Bill. I have spent a great deal of time working on it, as have many others. We have to look several times at an interpretation. It is not a question of excluding children from schools. I must put that fact on the record.
  I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the matter. Obviously others will gain the same impression as he did. If some believe that the Bill categorises them with the intention of putting them in special schools, I can only say that that is not the intention of the clause. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we have great respect for those working in special schools. There are two such schools in my constituency—the Kingsbury day school and the Grove Park school. I have visited both. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, one leaves such schools feeling very humble and full of respect for the staff, parents and children, and for the work that they are doing. At the same time, the whole point of the Bill—I know that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me—is that, wherever possible, handicapped children should be integrated into ordinary schools.
  If, by virtue of this short debate, we have made the Bill's aim clear to the country—and we shall continue to make it clear—it has fulfilled a useful purpose. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there is no point in continuing with the debate. We shall check the interpretation and ensure that people in the country understand it.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am not prepared to accept the Minister's assurances that the matter has nothing to do with resources. I can think of one or two children in my constituency with handicaps that make it difficult for them to attend normal schools. As I understand the clause, they would be categorised as needing special education, but if they lived in another area where the schools are constructed in a different way they would not be so categorised.
  Dr. Boyson: If such children cannot be accommodated in a normal school, it becomes a special educational need. It is not a question of shutting children away. Such needs should be covered by the local authority. They have a special educational need and we must consider how we can

  445
  meet it. If we can accommodate them in normal schools we shall try to do so. However, if they cannot attend a normal school, that is the very definition of a special need.
  Mr. Bennett: My point is that the physical building should not cause them to be categorised as needing special education. In many circumstances it is the physical conditions that cause the problems. If the physical conditions of the schools were created in such a way that they were easy of access and allowed for easy movement, there would be no need to categorise children.
  If the building is all on one level and is easy of access, there is no need to treat any differently those suffering, for example, from certain heart conditions and the other children who attend the school. Of course the teacher will be aware that there is a slight medical background. As soon as stairs and problems of access are introduced into a school, the school becomes unsuitable for certain categories of children and it begins to be said that those children cannot be educated within the normal education system.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: This is an interesting discussion. We are trying to find a way to give all children equal access to the curriculum. If we are to do that we must overcome certain physical problems of access to buildings. We are talking about a situation in which some children will be seen to be less than normal. They will be seen to be less than normal if other access facilities have to be provided. That is something that we must accept. Is it not sensible to say that the world is imperfect and that we should merely adhere to the principle of equal access to the curriculum? That does not and cannot necessarily mean equal access to all buildings.
  Mr. Bennett: I am being led away from my argument. I accept that there are many difficulties in adapting existing buildings to provide equality of access. I plead with the Minister to examine new school building extremely carefully.
  On Monday I visited the Avondale school, in my constituency, which is one of the schools that serve the local community extremely well. It is a caring and concerned school. The school consists of two buildings. One of the buildings was constructed in the 1930s. I suspect that for many handicapped children it is fairly easy to get round the old building.
  The other part of the school was constructed within the past five years. There are repeated changes of level. That is a feature that makes it a nightmare for a child with even a small handicap. I accept that the design of the building was approved when a Labour Government were in office and that account was not taken of the difficulties that the design would create. I plead with the Minister to make it clear that no more schools should be designed that have pitfalls for the handicapped and make it less easy for them to be incorporated into the general education system.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I listened very carefully to the Minister's reply. It seemed quite clear that he wanted to meet the point that we are making in the amendment. He said that there was difficulty about drafting. He is prepared to look at the question again and, I assume, to propose a suitable amendment in another place.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) makes a very important point about new
  446
  buildings. We cannot right the wrongs of centuries in a moment of time, but what we ought to be very concerned about is making sure that the wrong of excluding disabled people does not happen again. In the advice that we give to all educational authorities we should be quite clear that in future our educational buildings should, wherever possible, be as available to disabled children and young people as they are to other children and young people.
  With the assurance given by the Minister, I do not wish to press the amendment. I thank him for agreeing to look very carefully at the points that we have made and to respond later as helpfully as he can.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, leave out lines 7 to 10 and insert:
  '(4) In the event that a child is assessed as having a learning difficulty partly or solely because the language (or form of the language) in which he is, or will be, taught is different from a language (or form of a language) which has at any time been spoken in his home, his parents shall have the right to be consulted.'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
  No. 4, in page 2, line 8, leave out 'solely'.
  No. 13, in clause 5, page 4, line 28, after 'parent' , insert:
  'in a form and language known by the local education authority to be understood by the parent'.
  No. 17, in page 5, line 6, at end insert:
  '(c) Where the first language, or form of language, of the child is not recognised as standard English, arrangements are to be made to make any assessment in a language known by the local education authority to be understood by the child.'
  Mr. Whitehead: The amendments deal with a series of representations that have been made to hon. Members on the position of children whose second language is English and whose parents in many instances feel, as do those who teach them, that the children have not been sufficiently, adequately, or fairly assessed within the education system. I attach no blame and I cast no aspersions. In the nature of things it has taken the education establishment some time to adjust to the fact that we now have many children who sometimes need assessment because of their special problems or handicaps. The fact that their culture as well as their primary language is not in the English tradition is a significant factor.
  We have had a number of representations from the National Association for Multiracial Education, which has stressed that, as the Bill stands, there is a major problem for the child whose second language is English. It argues that, although learning difficulties ascribed in any way to language difficulties are excluded in clause 1, in all probability there will be a category of children for whom the approach and assessment of their teachers will be conditioned in the first instance by the children's inability properly to communicate in English, which will exacerbate other difficulties that they may have. We feel that it would be better to insert in clause 1 a new subsection (4) that would read as follows:
  "In the event that a child is assessed as having a learning difficulty partly or solely because the language (or form of the language) in which he is, or will be, taught is different from a language (or form of a language) which has at any time been spoken in his home, his parents shall have the right to be consulted."

  447
  The amendment proposes that lines 7 to 10 should be removed.
  I accept that this is moving back slightly from the definition that we agreed in Committee in respect of clause 1(4). However, it has been argued strongly by NAME that many children in what it would call the Rampton category rather than the Warnock category—I suppose that we cannot refer to the Rampton category now and that we should use the term Swann category, and these are swans who often become geese—are sent to centres for the disturbed or to ESN schools because of an inability to recognise that their problems come from the failure of their teachers and assessors to grasp that the problem is one of communication, especially if they are speaking in the West Indian patois or they come from the Indian sub-continent or from parts of Africa. In the circumstances we feel that it should be possible to include in the Bill the specific right of parents to be consulted if there is to be an assessment of the child under the conditions of clause 1.
  The right to be consulted should therefore be in the Bill, with the agreement that at some stage there may be a definition of "learning difficulty", which includes the concept of language. It has been excluded from the Bill as drafted and from our debates in Committee. On the whole, although there were differences in Committee, we went along with that at the time. We now believe that it should be acknowledged that the element of language is sometimes part of the problem. It has sometimes been a factor in the premature and wrongful definition of a child's problems, and has sometimes led to the child being consigned to an unsuitable destination.
  6.30 pm
  The learning difficulty linked to language, where the child's second language—not first language—is English, should be included in the Bill. The child's parents should have the right to be consulted when the difficulty is identified and communicated to them.
  The question then arises how it would be communicated to them. That brings me to amendments Nos. 13 and 17. The Bill as drafted gives parents the right of consultation—a right to discuss the matter with those who propose to make the assessment. As I read the Bill, it does not give them a right to make an objection to stop the assessment. It allows them to object to the result of the assessment. The particular problem here—it was underlined by the national association—is that there might be cases where the parents, for good or bad reasons, did not wish the assessment to be made. The good reason would be if they distrusted the basis on which it was done, the tests that were used, and so on. Amendment No. 25 relates to that matter. The bad reason would be that they could not understand why the assessment was required or demanded.
  In those circumstances it would be the worst possible start to proceedings if the parents could not understand why an assessment was required for their child, why their child was being asked to do various tests, being considered for assessment, and being taken to a special school from which, as far as they knew, he or she could not thereafter be removed, and where they might have fewer rights than most parents have under the 1980 Act.
  We propose in the provision in clause 5 relating to information for parents to include the words:
  "in a form and language known by the local education authority to be understood by the parent",
  and subsequently, in amendment No. 17:
  448
  "Where the first language, or form of language, of the child is not recognised as standard English, arrangements are to be made to make any assessment in a language known by the local education authority to be understood by the child".
  I hope that the intention is obvious, and I believe that the Government should accept the amendment. It is to make clear beyond peradventure that the parents of the child are absolutely clear about why the assessment is being demanded. They should know their rights of consultation and objection, and it should all be done in their language—the language in which they communicate with each other and with the child. That information and the form of testing used should also be conveyed to the child in the language with which the child is perfectly familiar—in other words, the child's first language. When the child's second language is English—perhaps even the child's third language—this could not be carried out without an undertaking in the Bill, or at least an undertaking from the Under-Secretary, that it will be possible to make allowance for this in the regulations.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will view the matter sympathetically. I know that he probably has more children of new Commonwealth origin in his constituency than do most other Conservative Members. He will therefore be aware of the particular difficulties that I and many others have in our constituencies. We must make allowances in this regard and do so in a manner that will be absolutely clear to the many parents whose first language is not English and who are deeply suspicious of the kind of educational assessment that their children receive in our schools.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: I speak not only as the Member for Merioneth, but as a resident of Brent, South. I do so because many of the problems that were faced—no longer, fortunately—by speakers of Welsh, as a language other than English, are still faced by members of the black and other minority communities in inner cities who have sought to obtain a just education for themselves and for their children. It is ironic that in all our debates on an Education Bill, the medium of education—language—has not been a major feature, although I understand the reasons for it.
  In a brief intervention in Committee the Under-Secretary said that the language issue was a "non-Warnock problem". He said:
  "Just because somebody speaks another language or a patois of another language, that is not a special educational need in the Warnock sense whereby he would be removed from the school".
  Later he said:
  "Indeed, if it were dealt with as a Warnock problem it would worsen the whole situation. If this were to be linked with mental and physical handicap, it would create greater problems in our society, and the only reason this provision is put in is to stop that happening".
  Then he said that he was
  "sure that we would handle the problem better in the future than it had been handled in the past".—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 10 March 1981; c. 239.]
  I wish that I shared the Under-Secretary's optimism. It would have been easier to discuss the amendments in the context of the interim report of the committee of inquiry into the education of children from ethnic minority groups. Perhaps the Minister will say when we can expect to have that report, so that we can use it in discussing these issues.
  I was not satisfied with the Minister's response. Representations have been made to me personally by the Commission for Racial Equality on behalf of other organisations. Other CRCs and organisations, particularly

  449
  those representing West Indian communities, have made strong representations on the matter. Profound concern exists, particularly within that community, about the large number of black children—the problem has not appeared suddenly—who over the years have been deprived under our education system.
  I shall call it the under-achievement of the schools in teaching West Indian children, as compared with what is called the under-achieving child. It is the under-achievement of the system that caters for them as British citizens. I deliberately avoid using the word "immigrants", which is too often used in this context.
  Black citizens of Britain suffer a disadvantage by being admitted to special schools. I shall not go through the whole history, because it was documented by ILEA in 1966. It was shown that the percentage of black children in ILEA ESN day schools was then 23·3 per cent., compared with 13·2 per cent. in the authority's primary and secondary schools. The majority of those were of West Indian origin. By 1967 the proportion had risen to 28·4 per cent. Gradually, during the 1960s and 1970s, it became a major campaign issue.
  It is important to remind the House, in the absence of any black Members, that the black community in Britain of 4 per cent. is severely under-represented in our political system, unlike the Welsh, who are over-represented. So we should remember that this matter has been a major campaigning issue on the part of West Indians.
  I refer only to the celebrated paper on the subject
  "How the West Indian Child is made Educationally Sub-normal in the British School System",
  produced by Bernard Coard in 1971. The whole debate then on the nature of IQ tests and the cultural and class bias in those tests is still with us and is behind the concern which will no doubt be discussed in the interim report when it is published.
  Concern over the placement of West Indian children continued to be voiced during the 1970s in Race Today and other journals. The formation of a black parents' movement, and the pressure that was exerted, led to the study by the Select Committee on Race and Immigration in its report on education. As a result of that study, the Rampton committee was established.
  Evidence was given by 16 official bodies about the ESN classification to the Committee which produced the 1973 report. That shows the concern that exists about this issue. The 1973 report produced figures for the number of West Indian children who were then in special schools. When will those statistics be updated? The fact that we do not have ethnically based statistics now, and the fact that there was an apparent decision by the Department to suspend making those statistics available, has meant that it is impossible adequately to update this discussion.
  However, in 1972, 3,850 West Indian children were in special schools. From the evidence presented to the Rampton committee it is clear that there is substantial concern about this issue. The statistics ought to be available to the House. They ought to be published and regularly monitored. That point was made by the Select Committee in 1976–77.
  The West Indian community feels deeply about this issue. The ESN(M) classification has come to symbolise the under-achieving school system for West Indian kids. For that reason, the Government ought to take careful note
  450
  of what has been said by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). My concern is that, although the Warnock report did not deal specifically with language, it neglected that issue at its cost. It led to further serious misgivings within the West Indian community, particularly about the likely result of the classification arising from Warnock. Part of the problem is the nature of the classification, and that has featured in all our debates.
  The fact that the report touches only briefly on this issue in one paragraph in 416 pages shows a failure to grapple with the problem. If the statistics for the 1970s still apply, and if West Indian children continue to be over-represented in special education—as they now are in ESN(M) schooling—it appears that one in two will require some special educational provision. That is now the position under ESN(M), and presumably that will be the position under Warnock.
  A more realistic calculation may be that a third of children of West Indian origin may in future be considered to be in need of some special educational provision. Whether it is one in two or one in three, it still represents a major proportion of the West Indian community population. It is therefore essential for the Minister to look at this aspect of the Bill again, and particularly at clause 4. He should consider taking on board the amendments that have been proposed—perhaps in the regulations—so that this whole issue can be made clear in the light of the recommendations that will emerge from the Rampton committee.
  The concern is that the pattern of placing of West Indian children in ESN(M) categories will be continued under the Warnock recommendations as implemented in the Bill. Indeed, the way in which the school system does not provide for those children will still remain a basic issue.
  6.45 pm
  That concern has been put to me forcefully by the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality. In a letter that I received at the end of last month he said:
  "Our concern over clause 1 from a race relations perspective relates to how definitions of special educational needs might be applied to minority group children, particularly those of West Indian origin. It is our contention that many teachers hold stereotyped perceptions which, unintentionally, label black children as problems per se and that under the terms of this Bill they are disproportionately more likely to be so defined. We are not arguing that the Warnock Report or the Bill in any way intend to apply unfortunate stereotypes to black children. What we are suggesting is that given teachers' assumptions and the all embracing categories of SEN in the Bill this may well happen. If it does, the well known anxieties of black parents under the former ESN system will continue to be justified with the SEN concepts of the new Bill."
  It is in that context that the issue of language being excluded from learning difficulties becomes crucial.
  On that matter, David Lane said:
  "The Commission is very concerned about the general situation regarding mother tongue teaching and the continued failure of mainstream education to recognise the extent of linguistic diversity and the reality of bilingualism in many British schools. In fact we would welcome separate legislation on this issue.
  However, we would support clause 1(4) on the grounds that it should prevent non-English speakers from being regarded as remedial or SEN. This has certainly happened in the past, and since this Bill is specifically concerned with educational handicap our primary interest is that non-English speakers do not fall within a framework of educational disability; on the contrary bilingualism should be seen as a positive advantage that should be developed and encouraged by our schools."

  451
  I quote that letter at some length, because it is right that the views of the commission should be referred.
  Dr. Boyson: I take it that that letter supported clause 1(4).
  Mr. Thomas: Yes, but we are arguing for an extension of the provision in clause 1(4), and that is the intention of the amendments.
  We are also trying to ensure that, within the regulations, the points that have been made by the commission and the West Indian community, which we have repeated today, are taken on board by the Government. By addressing the language issue in the negative way in which they have done in the clause the Government have failed to face the basic concern of the West Indian community. For that reason, through guidance from the hon. Gentleman's Department to LEAs, it should be made clear that in identifying pupils who require special educational treatment in any form, and in assessing special educational needs, they must take account of cultural differences, the effects of discrimination and the institutional racism that is still found in many parts of the British educational system.
  If we are to believe the press leaks, and certainly judging from my experience of the school system in inner city areas and other parts of Britain, these factors, especially the institutional racism that is part of our school system and which is too often reproduced through that system—particularly with the incursion of extreme Right-wing elements into schools—all have a bearing on the educational progress of blacks Britain, particularly West Indian children.
  Within the regulations under the linguistic aspects of the Bill, it is essential that LEAs take account of the cultural bias in tests and assessments. That is another problem that has not been faced. We have had many discussion about culture bias, the cultural fair test and the way in which the IQ test tends to be ethnocentric in a Western way, but these matters must be taken on board by the Government.
  It does net help those of us who argue for multi-culturalism in Britain to find that these aspects of policy are always lumped together in the DES under "educational disadvantage". The sooner that they are looked upon as aspects of policy in their own right rather than as a form of educational disadvantage, the sooner they will be more clearly recognised as a legitimate part of the British cultural system and education policy. The Secretary of State knows that I have made this criticism before.
  LEAs should also ensure that the new procedures for assessment are fully explained and that parents are informed of their rights. I should like to go further than the amendment of the official Opposition. Not only should parents be consulted, but when the West Indian child is being assessed as having special educational needs, at least one person—other than the parents—who is West Indian or knowledgeable about the difficulties faced by the child should be involved in the assessment.
  That recommendation is likely to feature in the Rampton report and it should appear in any regulations that the Government produce. We should also ensure that more educational psychologists who are themselves members of this minority community carry out the assessments.
  Finally, I repeat the point on statistics. So long as the DES does not produce statistics on the ethnic mix in all
  452
  ESN(M) schools and under the new category, it will not be able to monitor the structure which has been discriminatory in the past. Young West Indians have been deliberately shunted off in a non-representative way into special forms of education, because they are over-represented in that part of the system. The statistics tell us more about the system than about these young people.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: When we look back at this debate we may find that it has been unsatisfactory. The debate in Committee was unsatisfactory. The response from the Minister then was disappointing. The response this evening may be disappointing because the amendment is not satisfactory. In a sense, I would prefer to retain the Government's definition, but to add the amendment as well. The clause with subsection (4) is almost a non-discrimination clause. It is saying that people should not be discriminated against because of their ethnic background.
  We have to face the fact that there are some children who have a language problem. There is a major need for consultation between education authorities and the parents, a point made by the amendment. I hope that the Minister will say that he will have another look at it and perhaps get it right in the House of Lords, rather than either accept or completely reject the amendment now.
  A child who has not acquired a language base to start the thinking process is handicapped. On the other hand, many children manage to cope although the languages they hear around them may be confusing. They hear different languages, yet fairly quickly they manage to pick up sufficient of the two, or sometimes three, to be able to communicate in them. At the same time, other children are so confused by the different languages around them that they fail to achieve a language base.
  The Bill should retain the clear statement that it is not intended to classify anyone purely because of language problems. We are anxious that there should be consultation with parents. Where a child has failed to achieve any language base, there is a recognition that he is handicapped and there must be full discussion with the parents about the best way to proceed.
  Dr. Boyson: I do not disagree with the sentiments expressed by hon. Members. The only point of discussion is the best way of achieving what they want. I represent a multi-racial constituency, as the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) said. I am sorry that he is not a constituent of mine in Brent, North. If he were, I would take greater care of him. The last two schools of which I was head also had many different coloured British citizens.
  What we have tried to do in clause 1 is to specify those who have special educational needs within the Warnock sense. These needs are fairly permanent. They are not necessarily all permanent, but there are medical reasons, physical reasons and reasons of mental incapacity. Sometimes the local authority knows that the problems will be solved, but sometimes they will remain with the individual, like partial hearing or partial sight, for the rest of his life.
  It is not just the Government's view, but my personal view, that it was right to include subsection (4). This is why I questioned the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) about the view of David Lane. The grumble for years by hon. Members has been that West Indians who

  453
  medically and physically should be able to cope in school and who have not coped because of a language difficulty have often ended up in a subnormal school. This provision was put in to prevent that.
  This was recognised as a special factor. That does not mean that the local authority may ignore it. Under section 8(1) of the 1944 Act there is a specific responsibility on local authorities to cope with that situation. I do not think that there is any doubt among Opposition Members that this was put in to make sure that people were regarded as having special educational needs just because they had a language defect that should be met within the schools. I agree entirely with hon. Members about that.
  The hon. Member for Derby, North said that basically this was a Rampton problem. During the debate we have made inquiries about Rampton. The first report is being published next week, so there is no question of delay upon it. It would be wrong to bring this matter into the context of a Warnock Bill. It would be resented in the long run by the minority communities if they found themselves linked with people with other defects as having special educational needs purely and simply because their language ability was not up to the proper standard. It was with the best of intentions that the subsection was included.
  It is important to include the word "solely". It is more difficult if there are various mixed-up reasons why people are not coping. If one can define that people have not easy fluency, it is a special problem that must be dealt with, but it is wrong to deal with it within the Warnock context.
  It is important that when parents do not speak English contact about special educational needs is made by someone who can communicate with them and in whom they have trust. That is a sensible suggestion. I do not think that we need to put it in the Bill. We can cover it in the guidance that will go out. More and more local authorities are doing this. The hon. Member for Derby, North asked whether we would cover it by guidance. I give an assurance that we shall give guidance to local education authorities that when they are dealing with children whose parents do not speak reasonable English the special educational needs of the children must be pointed out to the parents by somebody who can communicate with them in their own language and in whom they have trust.
  As a result of inquiries made last week I have found that about half the local education authorities have instances involving difficulties in communication and that three-quarters of them have now established ways of coping. In many instances the best guidance is what catches up with good practice and makes it general.
  We cannot accept these amendments. Clause 1(4) is right as it is. On the other matters of communication with the parents and giving information wherever possible, I agree with the request of the hon. Member for Derby, North that we issue guidance so that people who are handicapped can be integrated into the community.
  7 pm
  Mr. Whitehead: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for what he said. I wish to return to the amendments, but in no churlish spirit. We had a long debate on clause 1(4) in Committee. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that I went along with the majority of the Committee in saying that clause 1(4) had been
  454
  misunderstood by a section of the immigrant community. It was not intended as an anti-immigrant measure—quite the reverse—and to that extent it had been misunderstood. Secondly, I said that something like it should be included in the Bill.
  There are two reasons why I changed my mind in part, and they have been touched on by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas). The first reason is that we had at that stage, and not before, a large number of representations that this was not enough, and that even if we accepted the spirit of clause 1(4) there were circumstances in which additional rights and safeguards were needed for parents and child alike where the child's learning difficulties were partly and consequentially the result of not having English as his first language.
  I accept, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) said, that the amendment, which we do not wish to press to a Division, does not meet the whole case. We wish the Government, by way of instruction or fiat, not necessarily by amendment to the phraseology of the subsection, to make certain that, where a child's learning difficulties derive in part from linguistic problems, the parents must be told if this is an element in the assessment that is being made, because of the great difficulties that have been encountered in some areas.
  The second reason why I had reservations about clause 1(4) as we accepted it was the curious proceedings in connection with the Rampton committee. This is not the time and place to go into the fate of Mr. Anthony Rampton and the resignation of three members of the committee. It appeared to us that the Government were dragging their feet, that it was at least possible to say that Rampton had been removed and the others had gone with him because the Government did not wish to widen the remit of the committee to look more carefully at the research being undertaken into the education of the ethnic minorities in the way that the committee perhaps would have wished.
  It might be that the Government wished to speed up the process and get the report out next week and that they wanted a wide and comprehensive view of the prospect for multi-racial education, but, given that local difficulty over the Rampton report, we thought it right to come back to this matter this afternoon.
  Although the Under-Secretary of State met me fully on the spirit of amendment No. 13, he did not mention our feelings about amendment No. 17, which is designed to ensure that the local education authority, when making its assessment of a child, does so in a language with which the child is fully conversant. I shall come back to that on the subject of the right of access of parents to information about the testing modes that are used in the assessment of a child, but I should like to hear something from the Under-Secretary of State on the point I have raised before leaving this group of amendments.
  Dr. Boyson: The guidance to which I have already referred would also cover that point.
  Mr. Whitehead: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

  PROVISION OF SPECIAL EDUCATION: DUTIES OF LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES ETC.
  Amendment proposed: No. 6, in page 2, line 18, leave out 'children' and insert 'pupils'.—[Dr. Boyson.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 29.
  Mr. Whitehead: The Under-Secretary of State is fond of sotto voce interventions. I understood him to ask me from a sedentary position whether I wanted him to add anything. Because of our concern about the 16 to 19-year-olds, I should like the Under-Secretary of State to say why this form of words is used. Is it an attempt to safeguard the position in the future for the 16 to 19 category, or is it an attempt to exclude the 16 to 19 category from the Bill? It is capable of either interpretation and the hon. Gentleman should put on record the correct interpretation.
  Dr. Boyson: I am grateful for that inquiry from the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), because it enables me to clear up the position. The word "pupils" is intended to bring in the 16 to 19-year-olds. They would not be brought in otherwise. They would be under section 8(2) of the 1944 Act. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we are here doing something with which he as well as my hon. Friends will agree.
  Mr. Whitehead: In that case, we welcome the amendments and simply urge upon the Government the necessity for haste in the review promised in Committee of provision for the 16 to 19-year-olds—a review that, in the parlous condition of that age group in the country at the moment, we are awaiting with some urgency.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 18, after 'governor', insert
  'provided that the governor so designated has practical experience of special education or of children with special educational needs'.
  The amendment was tabled in the names of Members on the Liberal Bench, and in adding my name I was confident that I was doing the right thing. What was intended by the clause was that if the duty of being the responsible person was being delegated, not to the head teacher not to the chairman of the governors, but to another governor, that other governor should have some special qualifications, and I still believe that.
  The amendment makes it clear that if the duty is delegated to another governor, that govenor must have the special qualifications listed in the amendment. Having read it through, I am not certain whether the qualification applies, not just to the other governor, but to the chairman of the governors. It is saying that in that governing body there must be someone with that special qualification. If that is what the wording means, I have some reservations about it.
  I hope that the Minister will make it clear that it is his intention to ensure that if the duty is delegated beyond the head teacher and the chairman of the governors it is delegated to someone with special knowledge or special responsibility, and that he will do his best to ensure that on governing bodies there are people with experience and understanding of the problems of children who need special education.
  Mr. Beith: I am indebted to the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). This is not the first time that we are supporting the same amendment, but it is the first time that he has moved an amendment for me. I apologise to the House for the fact that a related matter kept me from the Chamber. We tabled the amendment to express in the form of a narrow point a wider objective. On the governing bodies of schools providing for handicapped children there is a clear need for a governor with experience and knowledge of dealing with handicapped children.
  The effect of the amendment is merely to provide that in those cases in which a governor is the responsible person, that governor should have experience of special education. That is much more limited than the wider purpose that I am talking about. In practice, in the majority of schools that responsibility will be exercised by the head teacher, as the clause allows, and not by a governor. It would be rare for a governor to have that responsibility.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will bear in mind the purpose behind the amendment and the importance that it will attach to at least one member of the school governing body having practical experience of dealing with handicapped children.
  We have all been involved in trying to reform the system of school governing to ensure that there are governors who have practical involvement as parents or as teachers and who are rooted in the problems with which they are dealing. That is even more true of special education. In many special schools it has been possible to gather together governors with a real interest in and concern for special education.
  I served as a governor of a special school for a number of years. I was impressed by the commitment of some other governors and by the experience that they built up, particularly those who came to school government through the voluntary societies and organisations to which we referred earlier. That experience will not be available on the governing body of an ordinary school into which a small number of handicapped children go. That experience will be needed.
  I very much hope that ways will be sought to ensure that any such school has a governor with that experience. Should he be the one to whom those responsibilities are delegated, it will be even more necessary for him to have that experience.
  Dr. Boyson: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) has been misled by the Liberals, though I am sure that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) did not intend to do so. In these days of dangerous party alliances, one has to be careful.
  The interpretation by the hon. Member for Stockport, North of the clause is correct. We have had various arguments about interpretation, but I agree with the one that he gave. I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. This is a probing amendment, which says that where there can be a variety of governors who represent different interests and different specialties, that can be of advantage to the school.
  I have always found the clause to be rather odd. It is an odd headmaster who delegates one of his governing body to tell the teaching staff that they have someone in the school with special educational needs, unless he has

  457
  lost his voice or cannot walk around with a blackboard and a piece of chalk. I should like to see a school that operates such a system.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: There are teacher representatives on the new governing bodies. Therefore, it would be possible for the teacher who has a special responsibility for a remedial class, or for special education in the school, to be a member of the governing body.
  Dr. Boyson: The hon. Member, with a blinding flash of inspiration, has shown why the clause was included.
  In the Warnock committee there was talk of a responsible person who had information about special educational needs, or did not have that information. It was said that he should be responsible in a general school if there was a unit for special educational needs. In this case we are referring to ordinary schools. I accept what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said. I must not digress, but I shall return to the point.
  The idea is that on governing bodies of schools in which there are many children with special educational needs—after all, there are 35,000 schools—wherever possible there should be people who know about the special needs of those children.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

  PROVISION OF SPECIAL EDUCATION OTHERWISE THAN IN SCHOOLS
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 32 after first 'may', insert
  'after consulting the child's parent'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
  No. 12, in page 3, line 34 at end insert—
  '(2) The local education authority shall notify the parent in writing of their decision and of the reasons for making it.
  (3) The parent may appeal in writing to the Secretary of State within three months of notification of the decision.
  (4) On an appeal under subsection (3) above, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, direct the local education authority to convene a special review committee to re-appraise their decision.'.
  No. 18, in page 5, line 14, leave out 'to reconsider their decision', and insert
  'to convene a special review committee to reappraise their decision'.
  Mr. Carlisle: I acknowledge that the amendment is the result of an amendment to clause 3 moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones). He was concerned about consultation with parents. I am grateful to him for raising the matter and enabling us to table the amendment.
  Clause 3 re-enacts clause 56 of the 1944 Act, which provides for the ability of the local authority to provide education other than in a school. It states:
  "3. If, in relation to any child in their area who has special educational needs, a local education authority are satisfied that it would be inappropriate for the special educational provision
  458
  required for that child, or for any part of that provision, to be made in a school, they may arrange for it or, as the case may be, for that part of it, to be made otherwise than in a school."
  Therefore, we are dealing with a child who is identified as having an educational need which requires provision to be made for it.
  The learning difficulty is likely to be a disability that would prevent that child from being able to attend school. The disability may be permanent or of a nature which may lead to a statement being provided under clause 7. In that case, full consultation would have taken place with the parents.
  A local authority may sometimes wish to make educational provision other than at a school for a child whom it assesses as having an educational need, when a statement under clause 7 would not have been appropriate because, possibly, the educational need was temporary, such as an illness which required that the child should be taken to hospital or should convalesce at home after he had been ill. Whether the child was at home or in a hospital which did not have a special school, the local authority should be prepared to provide for that child's education.
  If it is intended to make a statement under clause 7 for a child, before the local authority can carry out the necessary assessment it may wish to provide for it. In those circumstances it is felt right that, when the local authority proposes to make such a provision, the parent should be consulted.
  The intention of the amendment is to provide for that consultation with the parent before arrangements are made. It is consistent with the intention of the Bill to encourage greater participation of the parents in those matters. That was not in the Bill as drafted and it should have been. I believe that it improves the Bill, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eccles for having raised the matter in Committee.
  Mr. Beith: Amendments Nos. 12 and 18 are linked with amendment No. 11 for discussion, but I did not expect the Minister to refer to them until I had spoken.
  Amendment No. 12 refers to education for the most severly handicapped children who are ruled not suitable for education in either an integrated or a special school—in other words, those children likely to be educated in hospital. The amendment seeks to import an appeal procedure into the decision that they will not be able to go to a school of any kind.
  In principle, every parent should have the written explanation that the clause requires of the LEA's decision, so that it has to set out the principles of its decision and parents have the opportunity to appeal against it. The Government have been keen to extend appeal procedures and parental choice as widely as possible, and parents of handicapped children feel strongly that they should have the same rights. The right must, surely, apply to parents of a child who they believe could be educated outside hospital at a special school and want to challenge the local authority's decision that the child should remain in hospital for its education. Such parents would rightly feel deprived if they were not given an appeal procedure.
  In Committee the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) stimulated an interesting discussion about appropriate and inapproprate school premises, which revolved around the lifts and stairs at Highbury Grove and whether a wheel-chair-bound pupil could cope with the school. The discussion was a reminder that in words such as "appropriate" repose a local authority's arbitrary

  459
  powers. It is sometimes too easy for a local authority to make a simple and arbitrary decision without having to reconsider whether it could, by even limited means, make a special school appropriate for a child by taking on an extra member of staff, by recruiting a part-time member of staff, or by providing a facility at an ordinary school.
  If it is too easy for a local authority to make an arbitrary decision, the pressures that we want to generate through the Bill will not be applied to get children into schools. The pressures must apply as strongly to a child whom we would like to get out of hospital and into a special school as to a child who would like to get out of a special school and into an ordinary school. I am therefore keen for the Minister to reconsider an appeal procedure. I am not tied to the form of the amendment. There are alternatives, but somehow we should seek to extend the appeal procedure.
  Amendment No. 18 does the same thing in a different case. It deals with the assessment of whether a child needs special education. There is provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State, if he sees fit, to direct the local education authority to reconsider its decision. I presume that he is most likely to do that in response to an appeal from parents who believe that their child is wrongly required to have special education facilities.
  Under the amendment local authorities would be required to convene a special review committee to reappraise the decision, under the direction of the Secretary of State. The clause merely provides that the same people will go through the process again when the Secretary of State tells them to, which is not ideal. It is preferable to use another specially constituted body.
  Again, the analogy, if not the precise detail, is with the Education Act 1980, under which a local authority can set up an appeal machinery distinct from an education committee. We argued at the time about the merits of the procedure, but the Government are convinced of it and have sought to implement it in practice. Surely we can have an analogue of that procedure in this instance. If the Government believe that the local education authority in its normal form is not sufficient to reconsider the school placement of an ordinary child, they must recognise that the same consideration applies to an assessment decision. If the local authority is required to reappraise a decision, a review or appeal committee should be involved. In both cases we seek to extend a principle to which the Government are firmly wedded.
  Mr. Wigley: Is there not a converse side to the hon. Gentleman's argument? In some instances LEAs may not be providing special education in hospitals where it is needed. Should there not be an appeal machinery for parents who want their children to have such an education?
  Mr. Beith: Hospital education of handicapped children is important, but I am not sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. I am suggesting that a placement decision should be able to be the subject of appeal, by which I mean a decision on whether a child should be educated in hospital or in a special or normal school. The question whether facilities are available to educate a child who remains in hospital is important, although I am not sure that it lends itself to an appeal procedure in the same way.
  If there is no appeal procedure to determine placements, there will be less pressure on local authorities to ensure that the facilities are adequate. If, on appeal, a
  460
  local authority has to defend a decision to leave a child in hospital, it will have to say that there are adequate facilities in the hospital and that the child would be better and more appropriately educated there than in a special school. The local authority would have to satisfy itself about its arrangements with the AHA and make sure that the facilities were available. The existence of an appeal procedure would be a stimulus to make sure that there was adequate provision. I agree with the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) that hospital education, as on a number of occasions in the past, could become the cinderella of the three, where least provision is made.
  I ask the Minister to reconsider the desirability of building an appeal procedure into the provisions.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: There are two issues at stake in this group of amendments. The first concerns children who need temporary educational provision outside the school system, and the second those who may require long-term provision. I have been pressed by several educationists in Stockport to probe the question of temporary provision.
  I make no complaint that my new clause 10 was not selected, but it attempted to make it clear that, where we are dealing with the short-term problem, although there should be consultation with parents—which is what the Government suggest—the authorities should be able to get on with providing the education without being involved in an appeal. A youngster may have an accident and find himself in hospital for several months. He should be able to continue his education there. An appeal procedure would be inappropriate. Everyone would have to do the best they could in the circumstances.
  My new clause 10 covered the case I gave of a pregnant girl. It would be appropriate for such a girl to receive tuition at home long after it was appropriate for her to attend school. Again an appeal procedure would not be right. By the time an appeal had been heard the circumstances would have changed. I can think of many other instances.
  The clause is right if it is dealing only with temporary circumstances, but if it is to be used in cases where, for instance, a child is permanently in hospital, the appeal procedure would be appropriate. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the clause will be used only in temporary circumstances, and that he will assure educationists that they can continue to make the day-to-day, practical provisions that they see as essential, without an appeal procedure. However, where children are permanently hospitalised there should be the same right of appeal as if they were in an educational establishment.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Carter-Jones: As a result of my representations, we have an improvement to a clause that I did not intend. Let me explain what I was getting at.
  If a child cannot receive education in a special or ordinary school because of his health and has to be educated in hospital, he would, in reality, come under the medical consultant of the hospital. A clinical judgment would be exercised. The medical consultant would decide whether the child was to receive education. That was my point. I did not want the consultant simply to decide that a child should have no education or, say, only one hour a day for medical reasons. That was my line of argument.
  Fortunately, the amendment improves the Bill, although it does not go as far as I wished. As one cannot

  461
  interfere with the clinical judgment of a consultant, I had hoped to provide a check and balance so that the parents had the right to be told by the local education authority and the consultant what should be done for the child while in hospital. It was a mix of educational and medical need. As consultants are often kings, I thought that they should consult the parents regarding their decisions. Nevertheless, I accept the amendment.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: I am sorry if we have not done what the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) wishes us to do, but I am glad that he finds what we have done an improvement.
  I shall deal first with what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said about amendments Nos. 12 and 18. With great respect, I think that there is a misunderstanding. This was pointed out by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). I fear that I did not make the position clear. It seems to me that the clause inevitably deals with temporary stays in hospital, or temporary provision for education other than in a school. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Stockport, North that, whereas parents should be consulted in such cases, it would not be appropriate for an appeals mechanism to operate in that time scale.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was concerned with what he described as the most serious cases, in which the local authority decides that the child cannot be educated in an ordinary school or even in a special school, but that his needs are such that he must be educated somewhere other than in a school. He was anxious that the parents of such a child should have the right to appeal.
  That situation is already covered. In a long-term situation of that kind the child would undoubtedly be covered by clause 4 as a child for whom the authority would be required to determine special educational provision to be made. Once the child comes into that category, the authority is required to make an assessment, in which the parents must be involved. The authority may make a statement stipulating, say, the hospital, in which case the parent has the right to appeal against the statement, or it may choose not to make a statement, in which case the parent has the right to appeal against refusal to make a statement. It seems to me, therefore, that in the long-term situation envisaged by the hon. Gentleman a right of appeal would inevitably exist as a result of the procedures under clauses 5 and 7.
  Finally, if for some reason the authority failed to make a statement, the parents would have the right to request an assessment under clause 9. Having requested the assessment, they could themselves set the appeals procedure in motion so that the appeal could go through the committee and eventually to the Secretary of State.
  I think that subsection (2) of amendment No. 12 about notification of the parents is therefore met, although we have not said that it should be in writing. Subsection (3) assumes a different situation and does not arise.
  Whereas a case may be returned to the local authority by the Secretary of State with a request that it reconsider its decision, I believe that it would be wrong to lay down in statute the form that that reconsideration should take, which would be the effect of amendment No. 18, which suggests a special review committee to reappraise the
  462
  decision. I say that because probably the most appropriate method of reconsideration in most cases would be not the setting up of a new review committee but a reassessment of the child's needs by the professionals in the light of the Secretary of State's comments.
  Mr. Wigley: I followed with interest the Secretary of State's cross-references to the parents' right to appeal for an assessment under clause 9. Will he confirm that, as local authorities follow the 1970 Act with regard to education in hospitals, appeals may be made in relation to provision of a full range of education in hospitals, including the 55 per cent. of hospitals that provide no educational facilities for children under the age of five?
  Mr. Carlisle: I am not sure that I could answer that with certainty at this moment, but I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives an answer. If it does not arrive in time for debate on Report, it will certainly be in time for him to review the matter before the Bill goes to another place.
  I hope, therefore, that the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) will be withdrawn when the time comes. I think that we have achieved the desired effect through our own amendment and the present wording of the legislation.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill):I do not think that that arises. We are debating Government amendment No. 11, with which the other amendments were linked.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

  ASSESSMENT OF SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
  Amendment proposed: No. 14 in, page 4, line 36, leave out '15' and insert '29'.—[Dr. Boyson.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
  No. 23, in clause 7, page 6, line 12, leave out '15' and insert '29'.
  No. 24, in clause 7, page 6, line 14, leave out '15 days' and insert 'six weeks'.
  No. 28, in clause 9, page 8, line 5, leave out '12' and insert '6'.
  Mr. Hannam: I wish to say a few words about the amendments, especially Nos. 23 and 28, which are in my name. All the amendments relate in some way to the time allowed for appeals and assessment.
  I am extremely pleased that the Government have accepted a longer period for parents to make representations and to seek advice from the local authority and any other appropriate persons when they wish to make representations about a proposed statement. I therefore welcome wholeheartedly Government amendment No. 14, which extends the period from 15 to 29 days.
  My amendment No. 23 relates to the time available to parents who have been served with a copy of a proposed statement. As the Bill stands, they would still have only 15 days in which to make representations to the local authority. I therefore ask that, as under amendment No. 14 with regard to assements, the period for representations on a statement should be extended to 29 days.
  I do not regard 15 days as sufficient. Indeed, if my amendment No. 22, which calls for fuller disclosure of

  463
  evidence leading to the statement, is successful, the extra time will be necessary in any case. It is difficult for me to put my argument effectively at this stage, however, as amendment No. 23 is in a sense consequential upon No. 22, which is to be taken in a later group. But, regardless of that, the argument still stands on its own feet.
  I hope that in considering amendment No. 23 my hon. Friend will think of it in terms of a situation to which I hope the House will agree later, namely, the full disclosure of the evidence leading to a statement being made. I think that in those circumstances we would agree that 15 days would not allow full examination and consideration of the factors influencing the local education authority in making that statement.
  If my later amendment, which provides for full disclosure of information, were accepted in some form or other, we should have to accept that we would need more than 15 days for representations to be made, because of the time necessary to examine the various pieces of evidence. The disclosure of the evidence would require that extra time. But even if my later amendment is not accepted, I still consider that we would need to extend the period from 15 to 29 days.
  My proposal in amendment No. 28 would reduce the period for which a parent would have to wait for an assessment. We decided in Committee that 12 months was far too long for a parent to have to wait for assessment. Six months seems to be much more reasonable. If the local authorities are at all worried about having constant vexatious representations, they have an extra safeguard, because even if we reduce the period to six months they do not have to comply with repeated requests unless they are satisfied that it would be appropriate to do so. I hope that my amendment to reduce the period from 12 to six months will be acceptable to the Government and that it will not need redrafting.
  I hope that the Government will also consider sympathetically my other amendment, No. 23, which seeks to do what the Government amendment seeks to do, that is, to extend the period from 15 to 29 days.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In the information-collecting sittings and then in the Standing Committee stage proper, I pressed for information on how long the appeals procedure was to take, because it has been represented to me in Stockport that there is concern there that the appeals procedure could take so long that it could be detrimental to the child involved.
  I asked the Minister in Committee to produce a flow chart giving the time involved in going through the appeal procedure, and. I repeat that request this evening. It has been suggested to me that the period could now run to almost six months. There is the question of what education the child is to receive during that six-month period pending the outcome of the appeal procedure.
  I pressed the Minister in Committee and he gave me assurances, but I press him again to make it absolutely clear to parents that they can opt not to use the appeal procedure if they are satisfied. I tabled an amendment, No. 16, which was not selected, the purpose of which was to stress to the parents that it is to the advantage of the child for the assessment to be made by mutual agreement and as quickly as possible. It is to the advantage of the child, if he does not intend to appeal, to inform the local
  464
  authority as soon as possible, so that the local authority does not have to provide for the potential appeal time between the appropriate stages in its efforts.
  I realise that it is a difficult balance to achieve. The Government are correct in giving parents the right to the longer period in which to make the appeal, but it should be made clear to people who do not want to appeal that they must let the authority know quickly, otherwise 29 days will go during which the child could have been receiving the benefit of a mutually agreed scheme of assessment.
  I fully agree about the need to reduce the assessment period from 12 to six months, but it has been stressed to me in Stockport that there are resource implications for the local authority. Those concerned have told me that becoming too greatly involved in making formal assessments prevents their doing the informal work that some of them feel to be much more important. I hope that there will be a clear commitment by the Government to make the resources available, so that sufficient staff can be employed by the local authorities to enable them to do the work effectively.
  7.45 pm
  Dr. Boyson: Amendment No. 14 seeks to increase from 15 to 29 days the period in which the parents have a right to approach the local authority when it informs them that it intends to prepare an assessment. It is important that there should be plenty of time. The local authority, perhaps through advice on health grounds, may decide that there should be an assessment of the pupil, and that may lead to a statement being made. The postal services are not always as good as we should like them to be in certain parts of the country, and 15 days would not always be sufficient time. On the other hand, the period should not be too long.
  The amendment was tabled following discussion in Committee, when hon. Members on each side took part, including my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), and I hope that it will win the approval of the House. When the local authority has announced to the parents who are concerned about their child that it wants to do an assessment, it is important that at that stage the parents should have time to take advice, to consider the question, and to tender information. I do not think that it is so important later. If we begin to extend everything to 29 days, the time taken will be far too long.
  The Government do not wish to accept amendments Nos. 23 and 24, one of which would provide a period of six weeks and the other a period of 29 days. The reason is that the parents have already been involved. This is now the second stage, the stage of the draft statement. The parents have already had 29 days in which to reply to the authority after it has said that it intends to make an assessment. The parents have already been alerted to the position by then. We do not want to put into the hands of parents who wish to delay matters a means of delay that could be harmful to the child. After all, the parents have many other weapons that they can use at a later stage. If there is an allocation to a school, the parents can appeal if they are not satisfied. They can go to the Secretary of State at that stage. We feel, therefore, that 15 days should be sufficient to keep things flowing.
  The Government would like to accept amendment No. 28. It is a question whether the parents can ask for a reassessment after one year or after six months. The hon.

  465
  Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) said that he was worried because of the resource implications in Stockport, but the local authority is not compelled to do a reassessment. We feel that the weapon should be that of the parents. If, after six months, they feel that there has been a change in their son or daughter and that there should be a reassessment, they can state their reasons to the local authority.
  I therefore commend to the House amendments No. 14 and 28, but I hope that the House will not approve amendments Nos. 23 and 24. We are not against the spirit of them, but we do not want to delay the flow of action once it starts.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

  ASSESSMENT OF SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS OF CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF TWO
  Mr. Hannam: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 5, line 28 leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 20 and 21.
  Mr. Hannam: In Committee I stressed, as other hon. Members did, the importance of early identification of handicapped children and of appropriate educational provisions which could greatly improve their educational potential. We expressed concern that, as stated in the Warnock report, the fears and observations of parents are often ignored by professionals. I am pleased that the Government have, in essence, accepted that argument by accepting new clause 1. That clause lays a duty on area health authorities to inform the parents—in the case of children under 5—that a child has special educational needs and to bring that to the attention of the education authority.
  In addition, Government amendment No. 20 gives the parents of a child under 2 years old an absolute right to assessment. Therefore, those two amendments go a long way towards ensuring proper co-ordination of the statutory authorities, which in turn should ensure the full indentification of handicapped children and the appropriate educational provisions. In Committee we made great progress with the under-twos and we shall do so again with the Government's acceptance of amendments.
  However, a loophole remains which may result in some handicapped children not receiving the vital early education that they require. I am speaking of a situation in which parents do not ask for an assessment and in which the local education authority does not undertake an assessment although the child has been referred to it. Under new clause 1, the health authority will have referred a child with special educational needs to the local education authority.
  It is hoped and expected that the local education authority will carry out an assessment of all children referred to it by the area health authority. However, where that procedure is, for some reason, not followed, it is important that extra protection should be written into the Bill. There will always be the odd case in which a parent—through benign or deliberate neglect or through
  466
  sheer ignorance of the methods necessary to get an assessment carried out—does not ask for an assessment. As a result of that serious omission the child may suffer in later life.
  I have asked that "shall" should be inserted into the clause in place of "may" to ensure that children in need of assessment—as determined by the evidence given by the health authority—will be assessed regardless of whether the parent has asked for it. Amendment No. 19 seeks to ensure that a child is assessed.
  Amendment No. 21 deals with the provision of special education. It seeks to ensure that children under the age of 2, who could benefit from the appropriate educational intervention, will receive it. In some cases the local education authority will not be able to do anything at such an early age. That might be true, for example, where a child suffers from only a physical handicap. Children suffering from physical handicaps alone will not necessarily benefit from special education.
  However, it is hoped that the local education authority will keep a close watch on the child to see whether the physical handicap has any effect on his or her social and psychological development and the possible educational implications of that. In many cases early assistance is vital. That is demonstrated by the success of the pre-school home-based projects. In Committee we discussed such projects.
  In Exeter there is the Honeyland home visiting project. There are many other projects, such as the Portage project. Such projects help certain groups of children, such as those suffering from Down's syndrome. In such cases early stimulation can reduce development impairment.
  In addition, parents can be trained to stimulate their children, which is extremely important. Sensory stimulation is a precondition of education for blind and deaf children. Peripatetic teachers can start such stimulation as early as six months. In Committe we discussed dyslexia, and it aroused a great deal of interest. The early development of the senses of touch, smell and hearing in dyslectic children can improve their audial memory and so do much to overcome their problem with the visual recognition of words.
  Such children would have a statement made under clause 6(2), and the amendment would lay a duty on local education authorities to carry out the educational provision as specified in the statement. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the principle, even if the drafting of the amendments is unsuitable. I hope that he will consider it, with a view to drafting other amendments later.
  Dr. Boyson: Government amendment No. 20 gives a parent the power to request the assessment of a child under the age of 2. Amendments Nos. 19 and 21 lay an obligation on the authority to assess the child if it receives the necessary information. It also lays an obligation on an authority to make the necessary provision for that child. We hope that the House will accept the amendment.
  We are sympathetic to the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on amendments Nos. 19 and 21, but they were tabled only this week. I assure my hon. Friend that we should like to consider the amendments before the Bill goes to the other place. Perhaps we can find an arrangement that will satisfy my hon. Friend and other hon. Members.
  Mr. Wigley: I welcome the Minister's remarks. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) made some

  467
  extremely valid points. Earlier I stressed the need for education to start before a child is 2 years old. Parents may be reluctant to admit their children's educational needs. There is no doubt that parents have problems when it comes to adjusting—problems that will be greatest during the first two years. We may need to go further than the Government might otherwise have thought necessary to safeguard the interests of the child when the parents are trying to adjust to the situation. Therefore, I am glad that the Government will reconsider the amendment before the Bill goes to the other place.
  Mr. Hannam: I welcome my hon. Friend's assurance that he will look carefully at the principles that I have outlined. I hope that some changes can be introduced in the other place that will ensure that the provisions are incorporated in the Bill, because they are important. Accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: No. 20, in page 5, line 29, at end insert
  'and shall do so at the request of that parent'.—[Mr. Mark Carlisle.]

Clause 7

  APPEALS AGAINST STATEMENTS
  Mr. Hannam: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 6, line 21, at end insert
  'shall, at the request of the parent, provide all the relevant information on which the proposed statement was made'.
  Mr. Depuity Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 25, in page 6, line 21, at end insert
  'and at the parents' request supply the evidence on which this statement is made, including the names of any tests or other assessment tools used.'.
  Mr. Hannam: We come now to the thorny question of the disclosure of information, which provoked one of the most interesting and fascinating debates in Committee. Everyone finally agreed that we needed to find a formula that would allow almost all the information to be disclosed to parents, but in a way that would not harm the parent or the professionals engaged in formulating the reports. The wording has caused me concern and given rise to a few sleepless nights. I have tried to resolve satisfactorily the complex issue of a parent's right of access to the report on which his or her child is assessed and the statement made.
  The view was strongly put in both written and oral evidence to the Committee from voluntary organisations that parents should have the right of access to information. At present, information essential to the informed choice of a school and other vital issues about a child's future are being unnecessarily withheld.
  8 pm
  Such information is considered to be essential when a parent is considering an appeal. A point also made in Committee was that reports often contain factual errors or unsubstantiated subjective judgments and that parents have no right of redress. The Government's argument against including right of access, made in discussion with a number of professionals in education, seems to rest on two main points. First, in principle, they accept the right of parents' access to information and do not condone the unnecessary withholding of information, but in a small number of cases, probably per cent., the information is
  468
  sensitive or disturbing and it is considered that access to that information would cause harm to the parents and/or the child.
  Secondly, the opposition to full right of access rested on the argument that if parents had access to reports there would be that reluctance on the part of the professionals to commit their opinions to paper. The third argument is that the Bill says nothing on the disclosure of reports, which may be a strength rather than a weakness. It is expected that as parents will be involved in all Stages of assessment, they will have access to reports. So there are two major arguments against full disclosure, and the third is that if the Bill says nothing it will come out all right in the end.
  I appreciate the concern that has been expressed, but in Committee we came to the conclusion that they were giving the wrong emphasis. First, we know that we are dealing with a few cases involving disturbing or sensitive information. We must be very careful not to be too paternalistic about that. As Members of Parliament with constituency problems we recounted in Committee cases in which we found ourselves acting as a kind of disclosure information channel—a sort of "named person".
  We have to interpret a professional report with "confidential" marked on it, yet we know that that constituent, parent or social services case can never be solved unless we can transmit that professional information kindly and considerately to our constituent. We decided that the "named person" might be the way to deal with that. Since then, consideration by all the voluntary organisations and individuals concerned has concluded that the named person that we have integrated into the procedure would not be the right person to do it. We must determine this more carefully to see whether we can overcome it.
  I maintain that we should establish a right to access of information and that we should allow a reasonable amount of professional discretion on how to handle a small number of difficult cases. That is what my amendment seeks to do. I also maintain that, if handled appropriately, it is always better for parents to have full information, even in the case of a terminal illness. I think that most parents would want to know if their child was critically ill or dying.
  The confidentiality problem in such cases as critical illness, incest or marital instability is a matter for better practice earlier rather than secrecy later about a suspicion of problems in the family. That is why my amendment is carefully worded, so that the duty on the local education authority is that it shall, at the request of the parent, provide all the relevant information on which the proposed statement was made.
  In practice that would mean that the parents were not necessarily presented with a stark written report, but it would allow the education authority the proviso of making the information or reports available in conjunction with discussions with professionals. In other words, I have tried to avoid the complete presentation of written evidence and reports and to allow for information leading up to the statement; but full information could be presented both orally, in discussion, and in the presentation of written evidence.
  In Committee, when we discussed this matter, it was thought that the named person might be a solution where the information is sensitive. It is now considered that that would place the named person in an invidious and impossible position. It would be setting up a barrier

  469
  between the named person and the parents. That would jeopardise the purpose of the "named person" as a confidant and adviser to the parents.
  I realise that professionals may feel that that places a weighty responsibility on them, but that surely is part of their professional training and practice, or it should be. They should be able, clearly, frankly and sensitively, to discuss issues with parents—as we have to do in dealing with our constituency cases.
  Professional reluctance was the second concern expressed by the Government and was also discussed in Committee. If parents had access to reports, professionals would be reluctant to commit their opinions to paper. That is an important matter to which we must give full consideration. The danger seen by one or two colleagues and members of the Committee was that we could have two tiers of report—one for use between professionals and one to be shown to parents.
  My first point is that there is no thought that private notes or aides-memoire—which are kept solely for the purposes of the individual professional—should be made available to parents.
  My second point is that one of the main objections from parents and the voluntary organisations is that at present reports are often factually inaccurate and highly judgmental.
  The American experience tends to suggest that access to reports produces better reports, that professionals must justify to themselves, as well as to parents, their statements in a report. My amendment should allay the fears of professionals if they know that they have the opportunity to discuss the report with parents rather than handing over a series of written background memoirs.
  Informal access to reports was one matter that we wanted to clear up. The involvement of parents in all stages of discussion on a child's educational needs will include access to reports and discussions about the reports. That is not happening at the moment; that is why there is such strong support for the amendment from the voluntary organisations.
  Legislation is not needed where good practice exists. For example, in some areas there is already close co-operation and good practice on referral of handicapped children from area health authorities to the education authorities, but there is a need to protect parents where such good practice does not exist. That we have done with the new clause. I repeat: we need to establish in the Bill the principle of access to information, while giving leeway to the local authority to decide the appropriate way in which to convey that information.
  Access to information at the stage of the draft statement is likely to mean fewer appeals; otherwise parents may appeal out of ignorance about the evidence on which a statement was made. That, in turn, will result in considerable resource saving. I hope that my hon. Friend has taken that last phrase on board, because resources play an important part in the Bill and in the arguments that we have been outlining.
  In Committee we were concerned to find a way to overcome the problem of the professionals and their internal reports and to overcome also the problem of sensitivity of certain types of information for parents. Allowing for the transmission of information building up
  470
  to a statement in the form of written reports and/or oral discussion—as hon. Members have to do—is the means of solving the problem.
  My other amendment is consequential. Obviously, if parents are to have access to information they will need a longer period, but we have accepted what was said on earlier amendments and will stick with 15 days at this stage, although we shall probably want that extended if we agree that more information should be provided.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give the matter deep consideration. It is a thorny question which caused us a great deal of heart-searching and discussion in Committee. We are considering possibly ½per cent. of the wecases. If we can find the recipe that will allow transmission of this important information in that small number of cases, by written or oral evidence, I believe that we shall solve this thorny problem.
  Mr. Whitehead: I follow that commendable and exhaustive speech by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) by saying that I think he has entered into a difficult part of the Bill—one that was seen by us all in Committeee to be one of acute difficulty. I should have preferred—I say this with no disrespect to the hon. Member for Exeter—the Under-Secretary to move an amendment today.
  In Committe we reached what I thought was a consensus. Reservations were expressed, by myself among others, about the small minority of cases that were a limitation on the statement of the general right of access. I entirely endorse that right, and I think that the hon. Gentleman was right to move the amendment in the spirit that he did. I agree with my hon. Friends who have argued that the right of access is of paramount importance to the way in which parents and their children will regard the legislation and how their relationship with the professionals will be carried through the lifetime process of the preparation within our education system of children with special needs.
  That said, I had hoped that the Under-Secretary would be able today to recognise that we reached a near consensus in Committee, that we saw that in the minority of cases there was a need for a special intermediary who would be able sensitively to handle information which—this is the one flaw in the amendment—must now be put over sometimes face to face, verbally, by the professionals who have compiled the report. I see no other way of interpreting the amendment. The reason why, in Committee, we considered the "named person" as the possible intermediary was that he would be in a position to handle the transmission of extremely delicate and sometimes embarrassing information in the most sensitive way.
  It is not right to say that the voluntary agencies have all dismissed the notion of the named person. Some have, and I have had representations to that effect. However, others, such as the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults, have written to us since the Committee stage saying that access to all professional reports might well be provided in this minority of circumstances through the named person. They hope that the Government will accept the proposal.
  When we pressed the Under-Secretary in Committtee he said that he was aware of the Committee's concern. He did not spell out any possible amendment, but he said that he would reconsider the matter and see whether he could

  471
  veer it towards more provision of information, and the clue and the link in this matter could be the named person. He added that he could not go further than that now.
  That is still the position. The hon. Gentleman has not gone further. He has written to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and the rest of the Committee to say that there are extreme difficulties in legislating on the issue. The hon. Gentleman said:
  "We cannot assume that all 'named persons' will necessarily be the best judges of what information should be communicated verbally, or that the relationships they have developed with parents will fit them to convey certain hard or disturbing facts or judgments."
  That is also true, in certain circumstances, of the professionals who compile the report.
  Let us look at the difficulty of the professional who draws up a report. We must find ways in which it can be made less subjective and less tendentious than is sometimes the case if reports are to remain in the closed circle of professional opinion and advice. We must also see how the professional can be helped in the provision of information that we believe the parents should have, knowing that sometimes an intermediary may be necessary, in a minority of cases. I accept the figure plucked out of the air by the hon. Member for Exeter, who said that we were talking about a small percentage—perhaps ½per cent.—of the cases concerned.
  8.15 pm
  I do not accept the view of the Under-Secretary in his letter to us that
  "perhaps benign neglect is the answer to this question",
  and that, having gone over it over and over again, we shall find that our best course is for the Bill to be silent on the question of exposure of professional reports. I say that because I believe that if the Bill is silent on this matter there will grow up, whether we like it or not, a corpus of secrecy about some aspects of the statements and the way in which they have been derived. That is inevitable. It is inevitable in the process of professional assessment. Those of us in the Opposition who assert the general right of exposure consider that the benign neglect approach is likely to mean that over time parents will receive less information than they should otherwise have. They will probably receive the statement and some relevant information about it, but not all the facts upon which their judgment and their opinion should be canvassed.
  What right of access is left if the Bill is silent on the matter? A general right of access is not stated. The professional is left not being made to submit to those most affected by a case the full range of opinion that he has brought to bear on it. My hon. Friends and I do not regard that as a satisfactory outcome to our discussion in Committee. It is the one example that I can think of in all our proceedings in Committee when a real attempt to talk our way through to a consensus—indeed, approaching that point of consensus by the conclusion of the debate on clause 7—has been frustrated by the Government's inability to come up with any legislative proposals. Therefore, I am inclined to support as the better of the two alternatives the amendment of the hon. Member for Exeter.
  I should like to say a word about the amendment in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends—amendment No. 25. The point of that amendment is that there may not be fair and adequate testing of the minority of children that we discussed
  472
  earlier, children whose first language is not English, who are brought up in a multi-racial school and are tested and assessed according to the traditional methods employed in that school, which predate the onset of the multi-racial society. The best way of determining that that has not happened is for the parents concerned and those who advise them—if they are to go to the process of appeal, and so on, in the small amount of additional time that we now have—to know how the assessment was made.
  I have discussed the matter with some of those teaching in multi-racial schools. Their reservation about the assessments used now is that almost all assessments for special educational need were devised by, and largely standardised in, white groups. They predate the multi-racial school of today and the number of children with learning difficulties that derive from not having English as a first language.
  That means that the ethnic minority children whose mother tongue is not English are inevitably at a disadvantage, not only against those brought up on what I might call the "Janet and John" category of Ladybird books, but against all children who have grown up from birth in the English-speaking society, who are automatically better placed to answer the kind of simple questions that are rooted in that community and its collective experience, which form the basis of the test.
  I understand that the main intelligence test used is one devised by Wechsler in the United States many years ago—the WISC test, containing a number of questions about family behaviour, personal behaviour and the society in which the child lives, which has little relevance to children from a multi-cultural non-English background. This might involve localised knowledge. For example, the child might be asked the distance from London to Edinburgh. Hon. Members might think that a simple question, but it is a bewildering one, unlikely to provide a fair assessment, for a child from a different culture with little or no experience of the relatives involved in the matter.
  I commend to the House amendment No 25, which would give the parents concerned the right to know about the tools of analysis used in the assessment of their children, in particular the names of the tests, so that they would be able to check back and get the advice that they need about whether the form of assessment had been fair.
  Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. He asks that parents should have access to an area of considerable expertise. One cannot be certain that they would have the background to understand that to which access is sought for them. I wonder whether it is wise.
  Mr. Whitehead: That is the voice of a professional guarding his precious store of professional knowledge. I defer to the hon. Gentleman's concern and wide experience. The essence of the case that I put is that in some circumstances it can be shown that the genesis of the tests predate the coming into our schools of large numbers of children from varied ethnic and linguistic backgrounds. If that is the case—it is the contention of many parents and those in the NAME organisation—we should be able to prove to the parents concerned that tests have been used which make a fair assessment of their child, taking account of the child's special background and problems. I commend to the House amendment No. 25 and also, on

  473
  balance, amendment No. 22 moved by the hon. Member for Exeter, since we have had a deafening silence from the Government.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) is correct in saying that hon. Members debating this matter in Committee came very near to a consensus. I have read the proceedings of the debate. I have paid special attention to the manner in which the debate ended. It is clear that hon. Members who began with somewhat disparate views drew together in trying to achieve a solution.
  It is, however, unfair for the hon. Gentleman to say that the attempt to achieve a consensus has necessarily been disregarded or thrown away by what he describes as the Government's silence on the matter. We have examined the matter again. We have come to the judgment, rightly or wrongly—it is a matter of judgment—that this is not an area in which we could put forward any legislative change that would help the situation.
  I shall not speak at length, because the matter was discussed thoroughly in Committee. Anyone reading that debate will agree that the real difficulty is that one is faced with two conflicting principles. On the one side there is the principle of the right of parents to know as much as possible about their child, and on the other there is the right to ensure that we do not inhibit those who have to make the reports from being frank and honest in those reports, in a way that might damage a child's interests. It is a difficult balance.
  Everyone wants parents to have as much access as possible to information. In Committee hon. Members realised, as my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter made clear today, that there are two difficulties. Sometimes there is information that the specialist may not be willing to include in the report if he knows that the report will be made public. Secondly, even if there is evidence of a sensitive nature that it is right parents should know, it is important to consider the circumstances in which the parent is given the information.
  It is in an attempt to try to achieve what the Government believe is the right balance that the Bill is silent on the matter. Clause 7(3) requires that the parent should be given a copy of the statement. That statement will have to describe the need that has been identified and the educational provision that is to be made. It does not go on to say that the parent should, in all circumstances, have a right to all reports that have been made on the child.
  The hon. Gentleman said that it appeared that the Special Standing Committee had come to a consensus. The consensus, or near consensus, was that if the information was to be given, the right person to give it was the named person. That was my impression. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter said today that he now accepts that, for reasons that have emerged in further discussions, the named person is probably not the right person.
  The hon. Member for Derby, North said that it would have to be some special intermediary. The difficulty lies in deciding the special intermediary, to be written into legislative terms. It is not the case that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and the Minister of State, Baroness Young, have not given considerable thought to
  474
  the matter. They have, but in the end we have found that it is difficult to come to a solution that we could recommend to the House.
  If it is known by the professionals that information will be made available in all circumstances, will they be full and frank in what they say in the report? I do not see that that concern is diminished or removed by saying that information will be disclosed only to an intermediary, who will then decide whether to hand it on to the parents. If it is to be disclosed to an intermediary who then decides whether to tell the parent? The argument that that may inhibit what is originally put in the report applies just as strongly as if the information were made available direct to the parent.
  Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter said, it is not necessarily the case that the named person is the right and most appropriate person to make the judgment about what information should be handed on, or that he has the type of relationship with the parent that means that he is the most sensible person to hand on sensitive information.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Hannam: There appears to be some confusion here. We have passed the stage of arguing about whether certain information should be held back. We have accepted that all the information relating to something of importance to the future of a handicapped child, namely, the statement of his special educational needs, should be made available, and we are discussing how that could be done. We have accepted that professional reports find their way to intermediaries in all situations—either through a district health secretary or a Member of Parliament—and they have to decide how to transmit that information.
  The question is not whether information should be withheld—we agree that at some stage the information must be given—but whether the cold, professional report written at an earlier stage should not be seen by the parent. Someone—not necessarily the named person, as we do not wish to legislate for that—should tell the parent that he has a right to have the matter explained.
  Mr. Carlisle: I do not dispute what my hon. Friend says. The parent should have the opportunity to have all the matters explained. The best person to do that is probably the professional who made the assessment. I apologise if I have got it wrong. I thought that the hon. Member for Derby, North had said that he had carefully worded his amendment to meet the danger that if the report had to be disclosed certain things might be kept back. I thought that he said that he would not expect all aide memoires provided by the doctor to be disclosed to the parents. Is that aide memoir not part of the "relevant information" referred to in his amendment and on which the statement is made?
  I do not wish to be thought critical. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has made a valiant attempt to reconcile those two principles. It is difficult to do so. In the end, having considered the matter in the light of the debate, we reached the view that benign silence was the best answer. Of course disclosures should be as full and as frank as possible. We should not in any way condone the unnecessary withholding of information that a parent requires for a better understanding of his child's special educational needs. If parents have to be informed of

  475
  matters of a delicate, painful or highly technical nature, the most appropriate way to do so is by a face-to-face interview.
  We agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter that the named person is not necessarily the right person to do that. We remain concerned that if the professionals—I think that my hon. Friend accepted this, although I might have misunderstood him—felt that there was to he direct access to all their written reports it might inhibit—
  Mr. Hannam: The reason why I did not use the words "all evidence" in my amendment was to avoid the point being made by my right hon. and learned Friend. "All evidence" indicates to me all the documents, whereas "information" indicates a presentation of the evidence, but in some different form.
  Mr. Carlisle: I had intended to conclude my remarks by suggesting further consideration of my hon. Friend's points. I do not think that there is a great difference between us. He has attempted to provide words that accept that not necessarily all evidence would have to be made available in all circumstances, but that there would be a degree of discretion in the information made available.
  I give the undertaking that in the guidance notes local education authorities will be encouraged to be as frank as possible with parents. We are anxious to find a way to provide as much information as possible for parents, as required by the Bill, provided that it does not go so far as to be potentially damaging to the interests of the children.
  I am prepared to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter that before the Bill goes to another place we shall consider whether there is a form of words that will help to meet his case. I do not believe that the words contained in his amendment are acceptable. One possible approach would be to include a statutory right for a parent, on request, to have a face-to-face interview with the person who made the report. We shall give further consideration to these matters in the light of my hon. Friend's speech.
  Mr. Wigley: The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the important possibility of incorporating the face-to-face element. If it is not possible to incorporate a legislative provision for a personal interview, as opposed to a cold piece of paper, will the face-to-face element be part of any guidelnes that are given to local authorities?
  Mr. Carlisle: I can give that assurance. We shall try to cover this issue in any guidance that we give. I cannot say whether we shall be able to meet my hon. Friend's argument in statutory form, but, having listened to his speech, I am prepared to ascertain whether there is any way of accommodating him.
  Mr. Whitehead: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take on board also the arguments that I raised when speaking to amendment No. 25 and confirm that guidance will include the right of the parent to receive information about the methods of assessment and testing that have been used in respect of his child?
  Mr. Carlisle: I should like to have the opportunity to give that further thought. We are dealing with a difficult area involving sensitive information. I do not want to answer the hon. Gentleman immediately, as I might not be able to justify the answer subsequently. We shall consider what he has said, as well as the speech of my hon. Friend.
  476
  I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that this has been a valuable debate and will not press the amendment in view of the nature of my reply.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I had hoped that we would have a more helpful reply from the Secretary of State. That was one of the reasons why I kept quiet. I realise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was trying to be helpful, but his answer was disappointing.
  If we are to make any reality of the appeals procedure, it is fundamental that the appellant has all the information on which to base his appeal. How can someone be expected to conduct an appeal if all the information on which the case will be decided is not available to him? I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's experience in the courts will enable him to realise that he would find it impossible to argue a case in the courts if he knew that at the end of the day, after he had argued the case, a piece of information would be slipped to the judge that he would be unable to challenge.
  The Minister has said that he will go as far as he can by way of administrative guidance. It is essential that on the face of the Bill we set out the clear duty to supply all the information. It is important that the professionals who make the assessment give as much information as possible, if not all the information, to the parents as they proceed. If they do so, few problems will arise. It must be the professional attitude from the start that the information will be disclosed and that those involved will take the trouble to offer an explanation so that the parent has the information and has it in a form that he can understand, taking into account any disabilities that he may have.
  If that happens all the way through the assessment process, there will be few problems of disclosure of information when the actual statement is issued. The need for that sort of approach must be put into the Bill. Unfortunately, in my experience some of the professionals who are involved in assessments do not believe in that frankness as they go along. That may be because of pressure of time, or perhaps there are other reasons. However, they do not convey all the information. It is important to include that requirement in the Bill, because it changes attitudes and ensures that all the information is made available all along.
  I plead with the Secretary of State to make sure that in another place an amendment is made to make it clear to all the professionals involved that the information must be conveyed if the appeals procedure is to mean anything at all. It may take the professionals a little longer to give the information, but I suspect that if they give it and it is understood there will be very few appeals, because the professionals will have been able to take the parents along with them. If they do that, they will save themselves a great deal of work and save the parents a great deal of heartache. That will certainly be the best thing for the child.
  Mr. Field: I shall be brief, but I do not want the debate to end without stressing one matter. I am grateful for the undertaking that the Secretary of State has given. However, he seemed to misunderstand the position that we reached in Committee. That position is clear from what I said in Committee on 24 March, when I summarised the debate to the Under-Secretary:
  "I hope that we have reached the stage where the Minister will take the idea away and come back at a later stage to give a right

  477
  of access except in a few instances where the groups of professionals drawing up the report feel that it would be harmful for the family, including the children concerned."
  In Committee we established a right of access for the vast majority of families to the reports that make up the statement. Part of the Secretary of State's misunderstanding is that we were arguing that all the information should be channelled through the named person. The point was put to the Under-Secretary:
  "I hope that we have not reached a situation in which the named person will be the funnel through which all information is passed",
  to which the Under-Secretary replied
  "No".
  At one stage in our proceedings, the Under-Secretary drew on his considerable experience of the Old Testament and said:
  "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life".
  The letter killeth that idea on 26 May, when he replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock).
  I hope that the Government will go away and look carefully at the views of the whole Committee concerning the right of access to the information, except in a few instances. In Committee we were concerned with what the trigger mechanism should be for that tiny minority of cases. At no point did any member of the Committee dispute that parents should have that right of access.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: With great respect, I do not know why the hon. Gentleman thinks that there is much difference between what he said and what I said. I apologise for misunderstanding about the named person. The hon. Gentleman said:
  "I hope that we have reached the stage where the Minister will take the idea away and come back at a later stage to give a right of access except in a few instances where the groups of professionals drawing up the report feel that it would be harmful for the family"—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 24 March 1981; c. 388.]
  I thought that that is what I was saying. We welcome the widest possible provision of information, but we must accept the fact that there may be occasions when the professionals do not feel that they are in a position to give that information.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not accept that although he may make statements in the House and send out guidance, some professionals will look at what is written in the Bill? It is therefore important to put this statement of opinion into the legislation. I appreciate that it may be difficult to draft, but the presumption about giving information means that such a provision should be in the Bill rather than in guidance or in Hansard.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Whitehead: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to sum up. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) may withdraw the amendment, but I should point out that we shall be watching carefully to see what happens in another place as a result of what the Secretary of State has said. We are disappointed by the failure to make progress following our discussions in Committee.
  We know that when we consider Lords amendments in the last week of the Session, when everyone will be rushing off to the Royal wedding or to whatever anti-Royal
  478
  wedding demonstrations he may be attending, the pressure on Government time will be great. However, as a result of amendments in another place, we hope that the Government will bring back a proposal containing a statement of the general right of access. That does not exist in the Bill at present and it could lead to a demand from certain people to know why they should comply with something that is simply exhortation and which does not lay a specific duty on any individual.
  There are plenty of examples, such as the Children Act 1975, of particular individuals being given responsibilities in relation to a child and his treatment and assessment. I hope that the Government will look at this matter again in another place and come back with something better than we have seen today.
  Mr. Hannam: Each time we have debated this subject we have moved a little further towards the ultimate objective, which is to achieve full access of information for parents. I very much welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's assurance that he will look at this matter further. I hope that the Government will produce an amendment in the other place. We have provided enough information and reading material to keep the Minister of State, Baroness Young, active for at least a week. I welcome the assurances given by my right hon. and learned Friend, and in view of them I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9
  REQUESTS FOR ASSESSMENTS
  Amendment made: No. 28, in page 8, line 5 leave out '12' and insert '6'.—[Mr. Hannam.]
Clause 10

  SPECIAL SCHOOLS AND APPROVED INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS
  Amendment made: No. 29, in page 8, line 13 leave out `children' and insert
  'pupils with special educational needs'.—[Mr. Mark Carlisle.]
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 8, line 15 after the first 'schools', insert 'other than schools specially provided for patients attending a psychiatric hospital'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this we may take the following amendments:
  No. 31, in page 8, line 15, at end insert—
  '(b) schools which are specially organised to make special educational provision for children attending a psychiatric hospital and which are for the time being approved by the Secretary of State as hospital special schools shall be known as hospital special schools. '
  No. 33, in clause 11, page 8, line 38 after 'schools', insert 'or hospital special school'.
  No. 34, in page 8, line 40 after 'school', insert 'or hospital special school'.
  No. 39, in clause 13, page 10, line 2 after 'school', insert 'or hospital special school'.
  No. 40, in page 10, line 5, after 'school', insert 'or hospital special school'.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Amendments Nos. 33, 34, 39 and 40 are consequential on the first two. The essential point with which they are concerned is the proposition that

  479
  there is an important difference between "special schools" in the generality of the Bill, and educational units attached to psychiatric hospitals that are classed as "special schools".
  The reason for this important distinction is the reason why the children concerned find themselves in the "special school" of one of those two categories. In the generality of "special schools" the child finds himself there because of the characteristics of the school and his own needs. In the case of the "special school" attached to a psychiatric hospital, that is not the reason why the child is there. He is there because he needs to be in the hospital to which the school is attached. In other words, the child is in a "special school" attached to a psychiatric hospital for a medical reason for which he has been admitted to the hospital rather than an educational reason for which he has been admitted to the school.
  Mr. Wigley: Would the hon. Member accept that it is not just in relation to psychiatric hospitals that that would be the case? It would also be the case in other hospitals where the child is accepted on a long-term basis and needs to be there to pursue his education.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I have not denied that proposition. I am putting the lesser rather than the greater case. It is the one with which the Royal College of Psychiatrists is concerned.
  A child goes to a hospital for medical treatment with the consent of his parents—a consent that can be withdrawn. That is essential to the relationship between doctor and patient in general, but in particular in psychiatric hospitals, and especially where disturbed children are involved. If for reasons which are not medical the relationship is destroyed, there may be unfortunate consequences. Some children who otherwise would have gone into the hospital for treatment which they need will not do so, because their parents will believe, rightly, that they cannot rely on being able to withdraw the child from the hospital if they judge that to be the best course.
  It is not a necessary condition of going into a psychiatric hospital which has what is classed as a "special school" attached to it that the child will be subject to a statement under clause 7. On the other hand, the child may already be subject to a statement, or he may be made subject to a statement while in that hospital. The range of patients is extensive and the period of treatment may vary from a few days to a couple of years. This was recognised by Baroness Young in a lengthy letter which she wrote to me on the subject, in which she said:
  "The widely different circumstances and needs of children in hospital would also make it extremely difficult to arrive at any workable set of regulations which could be universally applicable."
  Quite so. If that statement is correct, how much more correct must it be that no set of regulations, covering not only all "special schools attached to hospitals" but the generality of "special schools", can possibly be applicable?
  My basic proposition is that to try to embrace within one legislative definition educational units which are termed as "special schools" and to which children are sent because they need the characteristics of that educational unit, and then to stretch the same regulations to cover a completely different situation is not only unnecessary and unreasonable, but is courting avoidable situations deleterious to the medical treatment of the child in the hospital.
  480
  In ministerial correspondence and in a ministerial meeting the case has been put that such units do not have to be classed as "special schools" anyway. In theory that may be true, but if they are not the alternative system makes no provision for paying specialist staff. In practice they have to fall within certain aspects of the "special school" classification, so that the special qualifications of the staff which are necessary to make such a unit run properly and to the greatest benefit of the children attending it can be properly remunerated.
  The solution to this conundrum is embodied in the amendments that I have tabled. Amendment No. 31 provides another category, and I have adopted, as far as possible, the wording of the Minister's draftsman, except in so far as "hospital" has to be inserted:
  "(b) schools which are specially organised to make special educational provision for children attending a psychiatric hospital and which are for the time being approved by the Secretary of State as hospital special schools shall be known as hospital special schools.".
  This merely applies a suitable term to recognise a different situation.
  There are other subsidiary differences. Some units cover a very large area. I can, naturally, speak with greatest knowledge of a unit located in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). That hospital unit, a clinic for severely disturbed children, covers an area from the Isles of Scilly to Bristol, and includes the Channel Islands. To think in terms of local education authority multi-disciplinary teams in Cornwall, Bristol or the Channel Islands making quick decisions about children located 100 miles away is not to be au fait with the practicalities.
  Inside the hospital school of that unit there is already a multi-disciplinary team which constantly assesses the children, whether they be passing through on a long-term or short-term basis. There is a doctor, an education psychologist, a social worker, a nurse, a local education authority teacher, an occupational therapist and a clinical psychologist. The social worker will be in contact both with the child's family and with the school he normally attends. The Minister will probably say that the child may remain on the role of the school which he attended before he went into the unit. So he may, but, on the other hand, he may not. He might have been excluded from that school because of personality problems, which could be one of the principal reasons why he went into the hospital for treatment.
  9 pm
  What is to be hoped is that, if possible, the child will be able to return to the school from which it has been excluded after the successful outcome of its treatment in hospital. What the hospital endeavours to do, both in the interests of the individual patients concerned and in the interests of other patients who need the facilities of the hospital, is to return the child to its home environment and its normal educational environment as soon as possible. That can literally be within a few days. On the other hand, it can be after a much longer period.
  The assessment of the child patient in the hospital and the school is a continuing process. If the child is the subject of a statement, has been removed from the roll of the school that it used to attend, and is registered with the school attached to the hospital, the Bill says that it cannot just be discharged from the hospital on the basis of the assessment of the team in the hospital which possesses all

  481
  the skills of a team outside. In practice the child's discharge would have to wait until a team could be gathered together outside the hospital to duplicate the work that had already been done inside the school attached to the hospital.
  Not only is that an extremely wasteful process of duplication; it is unnecessary and delaying. That is why experienced consultants in charge of such units, and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which has given some thought to the matter, do not wish those schools to be brought within the same formal classification as the "special schools", in the sense in which the term is used everywhere else in the Bill.
  Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman has put forward a valid argument, which I had not appreciated before. The term "hospital special school" may be interpreted by others outside as covering special schools at hospitals and psychiatric hospitals. There may be a problem. Is the hon. Gentleman's terminology right?
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is important to have a separate category for those schools. The hon. Gentleman has raised a valid point. If that were my right hon. and learned Friend's only objection, the amendment could be accepted, and in another place another word could be inserted by amendment, or the Chair might allow a manuscript amendment—for example, "psychiatric hospital special school". That might be a point of substance, but it is not one on which I wish to consume the time of the House. Any such terminological amendment would be acceptable to me. I hope that it would be acceptable to my right hon. and learned Friend as well.
  Without wishing to delay the House unduly, I am at some pains to remove some of the obfuscation that has needlessly crept into the prolonged discussion to date. I shall run through the arguments again so that my right hon. and learned Friend does not have to focus his attention on matters that are not relevant.
  It is agreed that children who are not subject to a statement can be withdrawn from a "hospital special school" at the request of their parents. I hope that it is also agreed that children who are the subject of a clause 7 statement and are registered as being at that school, and not at any other, cannot be withdrawn from the hospital at the behest of the parents. I use the word "hospital" as shorthand. It is not practical, after a child is withdrawn from a hospital, for there to be a legal requirement for him to attend school there each day if it is 60 miles away from where he lives.
  The Bill could place us in the ridiculous position of Shylock. My right hon. and learned Friend may say that nothing is stopping parents from withdrawing their child from the hospital. However, they are still under a statutory duty to see that he attends the school each day, which could be physically impossible because of the distance, unless and until the lengthy procedures in the Bill for removing registration are complete.
  If a separate set of regulations is necessary, let us have them. My right hon. and learned Friend may say that separate regulations already apply to some schools, termed "special schools", attached to hospitals, but we are creating a new structure. It will be many years before we legislate on the matter again, so let us get it right. Instead of getting the structure wrong and having to repair the
  482
  damage with regulations, let us acknowledge in the main text of the Bill that we are dealing with two categorically different situations.
  I shall not argue with my right hon. and learned Friend if he recognises that fact but finds my drafting unattractive. If he undertakes in another place to introduce amendments to the same effect, we shall not fall out. My objective is to secure a different legal status for schools attached to hospitals that fall within the "special school" nomenclature for staffing purposes, which is important, but also in terms of the children whom they take in who may have been in ordinary "special schools". It is for them that we must make provision. That is why I ask my right hon. and learned Friend either to accept the amendments or to introduce similar ones.
  Finally, let me say that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Foukes) has consistently taken a great interest in the matter, and wished her name to be on the amendment. I thought that she was adding it, and she thought that I was, with the result that it does not appear.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. A serious event has occurred in Northern Ireland tonight. Eight men accused of murdering a policeman have blasted their way out of the Crumlin Road prison with guns. Will the Government make a statement tonight?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The authorities will take note. It is not a point of order and therefore not a matter for me. It is a very serious situation. I am sure that the Government spokesman will take note.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: As the only member of the Government present, may I say that there is a Whip on duty as well. He will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. I think that the hon. Gentleman may be assured that his message will be conveyed appropriately.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that statement.
  Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said that he hoped that there were various matters on which we could agree. I think I can say with confidence that we agree on one thing: this is a complicated and technical matter. If, in my few words, I fail to persuade him that his amendments are not necessary, I assure him that it will not be because we have not attempted to examine the situation. Indeed, if at some stage he is able to provide additional information, I shall of course consider the matter again.
  As I understand it, the effect and purpose of my hon. Friend's amendments would be to create a new and limited category of special schools, which would be known as hospital special schools, but which in practice would be limited to schools provided for those attending a psychiatric hospital or unit.
  As my hon. Friend said, the purpose of his amendments is merely to disapply from those schools clause 10(2), which at present requires that
  "the parent of a child who is … a pupil at a special school in accordance with arrangements made by a local education authority shall not withdraw the child from that school without the consent of the local education authority".
  I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his speech on Second Reading, which I have had the opportunity to study. As he knows, over the past few days, at my request, an official from the Department has had fairly lengthy

  483
  telephone conversations with a constituent of my hon. Friend who is particularly concerned about this matter. I am even more grateful to my hon. Friend for substantially limiting his speech today to what I had understood to be the likely area of disagreement between us.
  The first point that I had intended to make, which I realise we both now accept, was that the clause has no effect at all upon the admission, removal or withdrawal from a special school of a child who is not the subject of a statement under the Bill. Therefore, if a child is referred in the normal way from a general practitioner to a hospital and it is medically decided by the GP and the consultant that it would be appropriate for the child to go into hospital, perhaps for a short time, and to enter that school, as the child is not subject to a statement he is in no way affected by the clause and the parents are free to withdraw him as at present. The only circumstance in which a child could not be withdrawn from that special school without the consent of the local authority is, as my hon. Friend has said, when that child is registered as a pupil at that school in accordance with an arrangement that has been made by the local education authority.
  The second provision on which my hon. Friend and I are agreed in principle—although we may disagree as to its validity in practice—is that if that child is the subject of a statement under clause 7 and the statement refers to a specific special school by name and the child is then, for medical reasons, removed from that special school and goes into the hospital and becomes a short-term patient in the special school of the hospital. The clause has no effect whatever unless that patient is also registered as a pupil on the roll of that hospital school and is removed as a pupil from the roll of the special school that he was attending.
  9.15 pm
  We believe, and would make it clear in what we said to local authorities, that, in practice, when a child is subject to a statement under the Bill and is on the roll of a special school, if that child is removed for a short stay to a psychiatric hospital, the local education authority would not take the child off the register of that special school to place him on the register of the special school in the hospital. Indeed, we would indicate to the local education authority that we would not expect it to do so.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I intervene only to ensure that no misunderstandings will arise. This statement does not refer only to the child being registered at a "special school"; it is at any school. I nention that because my right hon. and learned Friend referred to a "special school", and I thought he might have said something that he did not mean to import.
  Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is right. I was taking the case where the educational provision provided under the statement was the registration of the child in a special school. My hon. Friend is right. The child might be the subject of a statement, but that statement may not say that he is a registered pupil at a special school. He may be educated somewhere else.
  The only basis on which the clause, as I understand it and as I am advised, would require the consent of the local education authority before that child could be withdrawn from the special school in the hospital would be if that child were registered as a pupil at the special school in accordance with arrangements made by that local education authority. In other words, I agree with my hon.
  484
  Friend that, under the terms of the Bill, if that child were to be made the subject of a statement under clause 7 and the provision decided upon under that statement were to be education at a particular psychiatric hospital school, that child could not be properly withdrawn without the local education authority's consent.
  Again, in practice, it is difficult to believe that that position would arise except in agreement with the consultant psychiatrist concerned and the local education authority. Therefore, again in practice I should have thought that the only effect of it would be to prevent a child from being withdrawn against the view of those concerned with his psychiatric health, rather than preventing the discharge by the psychiatrist of the child from that hospital.
  We now agree that the impact of the provision is in only that limited area. It does not change the existing law in any way. In the Education Act 1944 the words had exactly the same effect as in the Bill. Section 38(2) says:
  "A child who has under arrangements made by a local education authority become a registered pupil at a special school"—
  that definition of special school includes a special school in a hospital, to which my hon. Friend referred—
  "shall not be withdrawn from the school without the consent of that authority."
  Therefore, if a child is in a special school, including a hospital special school, as a result of arrangements made by a local authority and is a registered pupil at that school, he cannot be discharged without the consent of the local authority.
  The Bill does not change the law. My hon. Friend is possibly saying that the law has always been wrong. As I understand it, during the years that that law has been in force there has been no pressure to suggest that it is not working satisfactorily. For perfectly good and genuine reasons, while recognising his concern and accepting that the psychiatrist to whom my officials have spoken is not convinced of the argument that I am advancing, I believe that my hon. Friend is mistaken in believing that this has a major effect.
  The other point that my hon. Friend made was about the regulations. At the moment, any special school in a psychiatric hospital is a special school within the terms of the 1944 Act and is subject to regulations. One set of regulations covers all special schools, that is the Handicapped Pupils and Special School Regulations 1959. I agree that my hon. Friend may say that it is putting on regulations and taking them off. Those regulations conclude that if a special school is in a hospital—that is any type of hospital—the regulations shall apply to it with such modifications as are required to meet the conditions appertaining to that hospital. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that any regulations made under the Bill would have to be new regulations and would need a similar proviso to ensure that they could be modified to meet the different conditions that arise in a special hospital from those that arise in an ordinary special school.
  What my hon. Friend is asking for is not necessary, because of the limited effect which he says the Bill would have on children in particular circumstances. I believe that that is repeating the legal situation which has been current since 1944 and, as far as we know, has worked accurately.
  If my hon. Friend is still not satified with my explanation, and if there is evidence of which the Department is not aware that the provisions in the law have

  485
  been working unsatisfactorily for many years, we should consider any representations that my hon. Friend might wish to make. I do not see that my hon. Friend's fears are justified and that in future the discharge of a child in the circumstances that he has described would be delayed because of the need to have a multi-disciplinary inquiry by a local education authority team when the wording has existed since 1944.
  I have no doubt that in practice the local authority will act on the advice of the psychiatrist in charge of the hospital that the child attends. I should have thought that in practice that was inevitable. I have considered the matter as carefully as possible and I have looked closely at the various Acts. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to accept my explanation.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for having looked at the matter carefully. However, he has not given us any news. If he scratches his memory he will recollect that I said that at present different regulations applied to schools attached to hospitals. My argument was that the existence of a different set of regulations recognises that it is anomalous to try to bring both types of "special schools" within the same regulations. My point of substance was that this should be recognised overtly in the Bill's text instead of pretending that they are all the same in the Bill and having to make a differentiation in the regulations.
  My right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that the problem had been overcome in the past—I believe, clumsily—by making a separate set of regulations for schools attached to hospitals. In pointing that out he has granted the case for the amendment. He has acknowledged that such schools are in a different category and that they cannot be covered by the same regulations. Indeed, that is why they are not covered by the same regulations. Let us get things right this time. After all, our legislation will have effect for many years.
  To date, the regulations have been ignored. Consultants have discharged patients who, under the regulations, should not have been discharged. In many walks of life people suddenly realise that there are extant regulations of which they had been unaware and which had not, therefore, been enforced. Once official note is taken of them, a different situation arises. From then on it is necessary to get the situation under control.
  I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will agree, on reflection, that instead of maintaining a text that pretends that "special schools" attached to psychiatric hospitals fall into the same legislative category as those that do not, that should be acknowledged openly in the Bill's text.
  There is another reason why that should be so. Local education authority officials are not usually lawyers. They know Acts better than the fine print of regulations. If the Act makes the distinction clear, it will be more likely to generate the required attitude among those officials than if the substance of the Act pretends that two different things are the same. Local education officials would not then have to fudge the regulations—which they may not be aware of, or may not enforce—in order to get out of a false assumption embodied in the primary enabling Act.
  Therefore, I again ask my right hon. and learned Friend to reconsider the matter to see whether he does not agree
  486
  that it is time that we got it right in the principal measure, the Bill, rather than once again having to fight to get it right in the subsequent regulations.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Is the hon. Gentleman seeking leave to withdraw the amendment?
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am waiting, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for a response from my right hon. and learned Friend.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Secretary of State has spoken once.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: I should point out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have spoken at great length. I take note of what my hon. Friend says.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 11

  APPROVAL OF SPECIAL SCHOOLS
  Mr. Hannam: I beg to move amendment No 35, in page 9, line 20 at end insert—
  '(5) Provision shall be made in the regulations to secure that—
  (a) the composition of the governing bodies of non-maintained special schools shall conform, as far as is practicable, to the requirements of subsections 6,7 and 8 of section 2 of the Education Act 1980;
  (b) each non-maintained special school shall have its own and separate governing body'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
  No. 36, in page 9, line 20 at end insert—
  '(5) Provision shall be made in the regulations to secure that, so far as practicable, it shall be a condition of approval as aforesaid that the like particulars to those provided for under section 8 of the Education Act 1980 shall be published for each school year by the like bodies or such persons as the Secretary of State may nominate.
  (6) Section 9(2) of the Education Act 1980 is hereby repealed'.
  No. 38, in page 9, line 42 at end insert—
  '(5) Provision shall be made in the regulations to secure that, as far as practicable, it shall be a condition of approval as aforesaid that the like particulars to those provided for under section 8 of the Education Act 1980 shall be published for each school year by the proprietor or such persons as the Secretary of State may nominate'.
  Mr. Hannam: These are probing amendments to allow my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to implement undertakings that he gave after the Committee discussions on the governing bodies of non-maintained special schools and on the information provided to parents of children attending the special and independent schools in the non-maintained sector.
  Amendment No. 35 seeks to establish an important point of principle and to ensure adequate protection of children attending non-maintained special schools. We have 112 non-maintained special schools in England and Wales, catering for 82 per cent. of all blind children, 45 per cent. of all deaf children, and 32 per cent. of all handicapped children attending residential special schools. Therefore, we are talking about a very important category.
  The schools are almost entirely dependent upon public funds, yet, as the law stands, they are virtually autonomous and they may select their own governing bodies according to their trust deeds and the 1959

  487
  regulations. A number of them have no parent-governors, and under present regulations teachers are not allowed to be governors. Not all even have local authority representative governors. The amendment seeks to bring them into line with special schools in the maintained sector.
  The second part of the amendment would implement the Warnock report recommendation that each special school should have a single governing body. At present, the wording of the Handicapped Pupils and Special Schools Regulations 1959 is such that the governing body of a charity is deemed to be the governing body of each school that it administers. That means that in principle the number of schools that can be governed by one central body is unlimited. That is unsatisfactory.
  Without a governing body there is no protection for children faced with expulsion or suspension, and there is no machinery to ensure that changes in the school not covered by the regulations are consistent with the needs of its pupils, many of whom are placed there and paid for by the local authorities.
  In the special and independent school sector handicapped children must be offered the same protection as children at ordinary schools—a point that was made in debates last year on what became the Education Act 1980. The amendment suggests the line on which the principle can be established for non-maintained special schools.
  Amendments Nos. 36 and 38 deal with the provision of information to parents whose children are attending, or are about to attend, special schools and independent schools that seek approval from the Secretary of State to take in children with special educational needs. The provision of such information should be a condition of his approval.
  The amendments seek to bring special and independent schools as far as possible into line with the requirement on public sector schools to provide information under section 8 of the Education Act 1980.
  These are probing amendments to allow my hon. Friend to make a statement about the methods that the Government intend to use to ensure that our special and independent schools apply the same rules as the maintained sector.
  My hon. Friend undertook to ensure that parents and teachers were appointed to the governing bodies and that proper information was provided. That explains why amendments have been tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). I hope that the Minister will be able to give details of how regulations or some other method will ensure that the undertakings are carried out.
  Mr. Greenway: If the Bill is about anything, it is about parity of esteem between children with special educational needs and ordinary children. We want the same principles applied to schools that are separate and cater only for children with special educational needs as apply to all others. It is not only right from the children's point of view that this should happen; it is also right from the professional teachers' point of view. Why should teachers serve on governing bodies in one sector of schools but not serve on governing bodies in another sector? That cannot be right.
  Where there are no teachers on a governing body, that governing body, in my view and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), is a less informed, less resilient and less useful body. For practical and
  488
  professional reasons it is desirable that teachers and also parents should serve on the governing bodies of these schools. They have a separate and different contribution to make. It is important that they should be able to make it.
  I have a school in my constituency that falls into the category that we are discussing. The school has a certain difficulty. The parents have no direct channel through another parent to communicate with the governing body. This is a deficiency within the school's organisation from which the parents are suffering. The amendment would remedy the situation.
  The parents of children attending these schools are surely entitled to the sort of information that has been mentioned. It is laid down that this information is to be published within other schools. It is a matter of parity of esteem that similar provision should be made for the 112 schools that have been mentioned. I support my hon. Friend's case.
  Dr. Boyson: There will be full sympathy in the House for the amendment. The question that arises is whether the course proposed is correct. There are other ways of doing things. I am aware that Opposition Members are not so flexible in their attitude as are Conservative Members. They do not possess sufficiently versatile minds to think of alternatives in life. Their approach is doctrinaire and one-track. I must not be misled—
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Why does not the hon. Gentleman say "Yes" and sit down?
  Dr. Boyson: When the hon. Gentleman, who speaks on every amendment, proposes that I should adopt the approach of a Trappist monk, it represents a sudden change of attitude.
  The 1980 Act made it clear that the Government believe that parents and teachers should sit on each governing body and that there should be LEA representation wherever possible when local authorities take up places in independent and non-maintained schools. The whole issue is concerned with considering how this can be made possible. Clause 11(2) says:
  "Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, regulations under that subsection may impose requirements which call for arrangements to be approved by the Secretary of State".
  That relates to non-maintained schools. Clause 12(3), which relates to independent schools to which local authorities send children, states:
  "Any consent under section 10(3)(b) may be given subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State sees fit to impose."
  One knows the difficulties of the various bodies that run non-maintained schools. The important thing is to achieve representation while allowing for the fact that the schools have different constitutions. One can make a condition of local education authorities being allowed to send children to non-maintained schools and independent schools the presence of teachers and parents on the governing body Where that is impracticable, we must meet that problem in the way that we met a similar problem last year with hospital special schools—that is, by some other representation that will speak on behalf of parents and teachers.
  I assure my hon. Friends that in the conditions under which local education authorities are allowed to send children to independent and non-maintained schools,

  489
  provision will be made that wherever practicable—or, if impracticable, by other means—there must be teacher and parent representation at the schools.
  Schools will be required to provide information to parents. Only two or three weeks ago we enjoyed a debate about provision of information when we discussed a prayer tabled by the Opposition. Local education authorities will be required to provide information about the schools available in their areas. Similarly, individual schools must provide information about their courses and internal arrangements. In the conditions under which local education authorities can send children to independent and non-maintained schools, the Secretary of State will specify that information similar to that provided by maintained schools must be provided by the non-maintained and special schools.
  I can give a categoric assurance to my hon. Friends that the points raised in the amendments will be covered by the conditions under which local education authorities are allowed to send children to non-maintained and special schools.
  Mr. Hannam: In view of the advice given by my hon. Friend the Minister and his assurance that the regulations will be amended to comply with the undertakings that have been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2

  TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
  Amendment made:
  No. 42, in page 17, line 9, leave out
  "formed the opinion, following an assessment"
  and insert
  "made an assessment of his educational needs under section 5 and to have formed the opinion"—[Dr. Boyson.]

Schedule 3

  MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Amendments made:
  No. 43, in page 18, line 2, at end insert—
  "Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12)
  1A. In section 10(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (vagrants preventing children from receiving education) after the word "aptitude" there are inserted the words "and to any special educational needs he may have".".
  No. 44, in page 19, line 27, at end insert—
  "Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (c. 65)
  9A. In section 23(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (local education authorities not to discriminate in exercising functions under Education Acts), as amended by section 33(1) of the Education Act 1980, for the words "the Education Acts 1944 to 1980" there are substituted the words "the Education Acts 1944 to 1981".
  Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74)
  9B In section 18(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 (local education authorities not to discriminate in exercising functions under Education Acts), as amended by section 33(1) of the Education Act 1980, for the words "the Education Acts 1944 to 1980" there are substituted the words "the Education Acts 1944 to 1981"."—[Dr. Boyson.]

Schedule 4

  REPEALS
  Amendment made: No. 45, in page 21, line 21, column 3, at end insert "section 33(1)"—[Dr. Boyson.]
  9.44 pm
  Dr. Boyson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  It is some time since the Second Reading debate. We may deal more rapidly with the Third Reading, especially in view of the speed with which we dealt with the last few amendments on Report. I shall watch the clock.
  Following the Warnock report, we introduced the Bill to establish a legal framework through which we could help public opinion to accept that, wherever possible, children with special needs should be integrated into normal schools with normal curricula. We wished to extend the definition of children with special educational needs to cover not only the specific and obvious categories, but many others both inside and outside normal schools. We have done that.
  We have abolished the 10 separate categories of handicap and replaced them with a system of pupil profiles, thereby extending the provision for special educational needs to many children in ordinary schools. We have involved parents much more in the education of their children. They have to be approached before a statement is made. They may complain about the draft statement. They may see the statement being made. They may attend all the examinations. They can appeal to the Secretary of State if they do not wish their children to go to certain schools. Parents are shown to be vital partners in the education process. We have done in the Bill what we did in the 1980 Act and we have similarly involved parents.
  The Warnock committee was established by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science. The committee reported in May 1978. The Government issued the White Paper in 1980 and the Bill will go to another place after what I presume will be a successful Third Reading. There are those who say that we need more resources, but if we wait for resources we shall do nothing.
  On 5 December Mary Warnock wrote in The Times Educational Supplement:
  "It is far better to build optimistically on those changes, even within a highly constricted Budget, than to sit around with folded hands, moaning."
  The Deputy Chairman, George Cooke, wrote in Education on 24 April that he agreed broadly with Mary Warnock that the Bill went as far as possible on legislation. The Advisory Centre for Education stated:
  "We welcome the Paper's echo of the Warnock report's recommendation that the existing form of categorisation of handicapped students should be replaced by the more flexible concept of special educational needs."
  I commend the Bill to the House. We have established a framework. We trust that more resources will be available in future and that we shall be able to go further with the proper education of children with special educational needs. I refer not just to those with extreme needs, but to the broad sector.
  9.47 pm
  Mr. Kinnock: This is the second Bill to pass through the House—I am especially pleased to say this in the presence of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop)—under the hybrid procedure. Anyone who was a member of the Special Standing Committee or who attended as an observer will testify to its unmitigated success. It was a great improvement on the way in which

  491
  we address ourselves to matters which are not of great contention but which require the consideration of complex arguments as we seek to improve the law. I am not giving those of us who were members of the Committee a pat on the back. I am endorsing the proposition that the procedure should continue and flourish. It should be used as extensively as possible for Bills of this sort.
  We were assisted by the mass of detailed and well-argued information that came from outside the House from many bodies, including the teachers' trade unions, various voluntary organisations and professional bodies that counselled us, provided us with information and generally advised us. I am not patting us on the back. I am merely saying that much of our consideration in Committee was rather better informed than is sometimes the case when dealing with complex issues.
  It is appropriate on Third Reading once again to record our debt of gratitude to Mrs. Mary Warnock and the members of her committee not only for the work that they did but for that which they have instigated by the force of their argument and analysis. I refer to the legislative provision that has resulted and the provision of a bible of information and a number of proposals on which we can continue to build.
  Having said that, I regret to say that our worries remain. Our first worry is that the Bill is a 2 per cent. Bill and not a 20 per cent. Bill. We are willing to give it a fair wind, but we feel that it should provide at least circumstantial, if not forensic, evidence to support the view that there are severe inhibitions in making proper provision for the 20 per cent. of children who, in Mrs. Warnock's estimate, will have special education needs at various periods of their scholastic lives.
  My attention is always drawn to the problems attached to the definition of learning difficulty in clause 1, which we still believe is inadequate. The matter was the subject of lengthy deliberation in Committee.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said today, under clause 1(2) it will still be possible to misinterpret a difficulty in mobility in gaining access to a normal school as a learning difficulty, when actually it is a difficulty of attending a place of learning, not the difficulty in the accumulation of knowledge, as may happen with children with various intellectual afflictions.
  We believe that the Bill is weakened because the possibility still exists of the prejudicial use of clause 2(3) (c) by people who are not well disposed to the development, improvement and integration of children with special learning needs into normal schools. We believe that the phrase
  "the efficient use of resources"
  can be used as an alibi for inactivity either by the complacent or, in even more miserable circumstances, by the willing who are simply denying the proper resources which they need effectively to proceed with the integration of children with special learning needs and with the expansion, extension and improvement of facilities to meet the needs of the 20 per cent. of children of any generation who have those learning needs.
  Probably the most serious criticism—especially as our debate has taken place against the background of the Warnock report—is of the Government's failure, for reasons which, after many hours of argument, we still cannot accept to take effective action on the three areas of first priority in the Warnock report. There is no
  492
  development of provision for children under 5 with special education needs. That kind of development is not simply a matter of change of attitude, about which the Minister has spoken on Third Reading. It is a matter of providing resources to meet the needs of children under 5 and of their families.
  The Government have made no serious effort to develop the legislative framework or to provide the necessary resources for Mrs. Warnock's second area of first priority—young people over 16 with special needs. Again that is mainly because of the Government's refusal to provide the necessary additional resources to bring about improvement.
  There is also the matter that Mrs. Warnock considers the most serious, indeed, crucial, for the development of special education—the improvement of teacher training with reference to special education. The Bill makes no such provision, although we accept that it may be difficult to legislate for such a matter. There is no emphasis in any other Government statement or circular, or promise of any statutory instrument, which would significantly change the curriculum to encourage and improve teaching in special education as part of normal studies in teacher training.
  Overshadowing even the advantageous parts of the Bill where provision is improved, where the statutory requirements are more progressive and where the definitions are updated, is the failure to provide new resources. That is the Bill's greatest deficiency, which will remain unless and until we can secure those additional resources.
  I could go on at considerable length, but I have no intention of doing so, because the most articulate and effective criticism of the Government's deficiency in this regard has come from Mrs. Warnock herself.
  The Under-Secretary concluded his remarks by referring to the views of the Advisory Centre for Education. ACE also said that the White Paper that preceded the Bill should be criticised for the absence of
  "an unequivocal commitment to integrated education as a right", and that
  "Government policy … along the lines of the White Paper will lead to a degree of international humiliation for Britain at the start of the International Year of Disabled People'".
  That is a different picture from the one painted by the Minister, but, sadly, the Bill is considerably less progressive in its provision than even we were led to expect by the White Paper.
  I have no wish to misrepresent Mrs. Warnock. She is a distinguished lady and we owe her a considerable debt. I have no wish to use her remarks in a political cockpit, as she has repeatedly made it obvious that she abhors the partisan exchanges that sometimes affect our debates on education.
  Mrs. Warnock recognises that that is inevitable, but she does not like it. Therefore, without indulging in mud-slinging, and without attempting to be partisan, I ask the Minister and Conservative Back Benchers to understand that I use Mrs. Warnock's words to make a plea for the development and improvement of education so that it meets special needs.
  In her column in The Times Educational Supplement on 13 March Mrs. Warnock said:
  "I said in evidence to the Standing Committee, (and I am prepared to go on saying this till I lose my voice), that 'without some special fundings, the 1981 Education Bill will not only do no good; it will do positive harm. More important, I believe that

  493
  without specific grants for teacher training our whole educational provision, not only that for children with special needs, will fairly soon be seen to be hopelessly ineffective and inadequate.
  If the present Government is prepared to say that £3 million (what is being spent on the Assisted Places Scheme) is chicken-feed, then they can find as much chicken-feed again, for a different lot of chickens. Three million would come in extremely handy for funding a limited short-term pilot project of inservice training in schools, for the teaching of children with special needs; or indeed for some other teacher training project."
  I shall not elaborate on Mrs. Warnock's words. They represent the most articulate testimony of the weaknesses of the Bill, much as we welcome and accept some of its provisions. I hope that the Government will have the common sense and common humanity to change their economic policy in time to make the Bill an effective and active policy instead of just a framework that is dependent upon the whims and fortunes of various local authorities.
  9.59 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I echo some of the mixed feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). Most of us who served on the Committee find the new procedure of taking evidence helpful. We also found the Government's attitude worth while and encouraging. Not only did they make some concessions in Committee, but they have promised that further improvements will be made in the House of Lords.
  Despite that background we have a deep dissatisfaction, because the Bill will make things worse rather than better. We have to look back to what happened in the 1970s and the way in which discontent and dissatisfaction with special education developed. The concern that we have perhaps got the principle wrong and should not be separating—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That at this day's sitting, the Education Bill and the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Cope.]

  Education Bill
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Mr. Bennett: There was dissatisfaction in the 1970s. It was felt that we should not segregate and categorise children into different types of special education, but should look much more to the principle of integration. Coupled with the discontent about the principle was a concern about resources. Pressure built up for something to be done. As so often happens, the Government decided to avoid taking action and set up the Warnock committee to inquire into the whole question. We then had a period of four years during which information and evidence were collected. Then we had the report, with further debate developing. As a result, we have a disappointing measure. Although it sets up the legal framework, it does nothing to provide the resources that are so necessary to implement the Warnock report.
  The situation is even worse. Not only are the resources not being supplied, but by setting up the legal framework we are pre-empting some of the resources that exist.
  494
  Unless the Government use more resources the inspectorate will find it impossible to continue to do the tasks that it now performs as well as those that will be imposed by the Bill.
  Most local authorities feel that their resources for special education are stretched to the limit, yet they are having imposed on them a legal framework that will take more resources to carry out. Unless they are given extra resources they will have to reduce the amount of effort that can go into the provision of special education services. Therefore, there has been a deterioration.
  The only way to get round it is for the Government to commit more resources. In this year the disadvantaged child who needs special education has a right to a fair allocation of resources. These children are not receiving a fair allocation. The Bill will do nothing to help. It might well make things worse. We need a measure that will give the resources to do the job properly.
  10.3 pm
  Mr. William van Straubenzee: I start my brief comments with a reference to points made by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). They talked about the special procedures that have led to the Bill's being given a Third Reading. This is only the second Bill that has been subject to the Special Standing Committee procedure. I shall give figures to prove my case that, contrary to what both hon. Gentlemen said, as the procedures were manipulated the new procedure was an almost unmitigated disaster. One of the most important innovations of the House was to enable the taking of outside evidence of technical people at the Select Committee stage. The experience on our Committee has put the whole procedure back a long way.
  I have given notice in the ordinary way of debate to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) that I would make a personal reference. He was Chairman of the Special Standing Committee. In looking at the proceedings of that Committee I have eliminated all procedural questions, such as the name of the witness and so on, which are normally put by a Chairman. If these are eliminated, 196 questions were asked. Of those 196, 42 were asked by the Chairman and 81 by Labour Members. So of the 196 questions, 123 were asked by Labour Members. I have all the figures broken down for the remainder because, although I have many inadequacies, I tend to do my homework.
  The truth of the matter is that a procedure that might very well have contributed greatly to the Third Reading, to which, of course, I am directing my remarks, has been perverted. The lesson that we have to learn is that it will not do to have a highly political Chairman of a Special Standing Committee. In future the Chair must be entrusted to one of the panel of Chairmen if this procedure is to be effective.
  Contrary to what the hon. Members for Bedwellty and Stockport, North said—I sat there, and at times intervened—I can remember occasions when Conservative Members of the Special Standing Committee had to demand of the Chairman that they be heard. I believe that grave damage has been done to an innovation that might otherwise have been of the greatest importance to Parliament as a whole.
  Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van

  495
  Straubenzee) is making the most grave allegations against one of my hon. Friends. He is doing it in the House, which is appropriate, but I suggest to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he is not doing it in the most appropriate form, and that he is not producing evidence that can be accepted as authentic or that is in the style of the House.
  As it is important that we should be able to subject to cross-questioning what the hon. Gentleman says, the way in which he says it, and his reasons for saying it, I submit to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Third Reading of a Bill is not the. most appropriate time at which to conduct such an investigation. The hon. Gentleman has the perfect recourse in reference to Committees of the House if he has complaints of this nature to make against my hon. Friend. Further, if he has complaints of this nature, why has he waited for three months to make them in this fashion?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Every hon. Member has to make his own decisions as to what he says in the Chamber. I heard the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) say that he had given notice to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) that he would refer to him. I have heard nothing that is out of order, but we should not dwell too much on the Special Standing Committee procedure; we should get on to the substance of the Bill.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not customary when criticising the Chair, whether in Standing Committee, in Select Committee or on the Floor of the House, to do so by motion rather than by this sort of attack in the Chamber?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is customary, but we have been dealing with a new procedure, and—
  Mr. Kinnock rose
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already said that we should get on to the substance of the Bill.
  Mr. Kinnock: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and in response to it, it is because of the novelty of the procedure that we are anxious not to diminish or devalue it by having attacks on the integrity of the Chairman, on Third Reading, well after the proceedings to which the hon. Member for Wokingham is referring, when there are several alternative methods of raising the matter in a more appropriate form.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner; Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that the new Special Standing Committee procedure is a little different, but not altogether different, from the Select Committee procedure set up some years ago principally to deal with public accounts. There has been a development over several years. Select Committees did not exist at one time, but they have been growing like Topsy.
  Some time ago I questioned whether it was proper for an investigation to be made into the secondary banks' lifeboat scheme—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are dealing with the Third Reading of the Education Bill. Therefore, we must confine our remarks to that Bill and not to any other matter.
  Mr. Skinner: I am trying to show the House that on that occasion I called for an investigation and suggested that the Chairman of that Committee, the right hon.
  496
  Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), was not a fit person to chair the investigation as he had been involved as chairman of the Keyser Ullmann bank, which had received moneys from the lifeboat scheme. That resulted in an exchange of letters over the weekend, in which Mr. Speaker directed that the right hon. Gentleman should have the right to stand up in the House and put his point of view. That was the view of Mr. Speaker about two years ago. I believe that the attack that is now being made on my hon. Friend could be construed as being in the same vein. Therefore, it would be right and proper for my hon. Friend to have the right to respond. If you check the records, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will see that there is a parallel between the two cases.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) were present he would have the right to respond. Let us leave the matter there. This is not a debate on procedure.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: As you wish, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was simply responding to two speeches which said that the new procedure had been a great success. I have buttressed my argument with figures. I shall leave the matter there, except to say that the Chair concerned was taken for only three sittings. Therefore, there were no other opportunities on which the matter could be raised. I am sorry that this has happened.
  Eleven years ago I piloted through the House what I think could be called the predecessor to the Bill, although it was infinitely more modest. It is important to put on the statute book the changes in the law—the skeleton upon which policy can be based later. It is important to do that, because it is difficult for this House and the other place to find the time in which to pass such legislation.
  Most hon. Members would wish to devote greater resources to the implementation of the Bill. I thought that by far the most effective technical expert who gave evidence to the Special Standing Committee was Mr. Stanley Segal, who has spent a lifetime in this work. He was at pains to make it clear that of course he had ambitions and other things that he would prefer to do, that of course he had targets that he wanted to meet, but his advice to the Committee was most emphatic. It was an important step forward, and it was one which the House would be wise to take.
  I believe that it will take time under any Government, because resources will be limited, to implement the flesh around the bones of what we now enact. However, that does not make the bones any less important.
  I hope that we shall speed the Bill on its way to another place and that in due course we shall see its increasing implementation, to the greater good of the young people and children about whom the whole House is concerned in the wording of the Bill to which we now give a Third Reading.
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Beith: The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) surprised and dismayed hon. Members by intruding into our serious discussion on the principles of the Bill his criticisms of the Chair in Committee. I shall not further that discussion, except to say that the experts and members of the voluntary organisations who gave evidence have every reason to be glad of the opportunity. Many will look back with pleasure on the fact that the

  497
  House of Commons, for only the second time, afforded those who knew a great deal more than hon. Members about the matters contained in the Bill an opportunity to air their views. Consideration of the Bill has benefited greatly.
  The Bill is based on principles with which we all agree, but there are dangers, first, of false expectations. Parents may believe that integration is possible for their children, when lack of resources may not permit it. There is also the danger that intergration without resources will be attempted in cases where it does not work and that children will be admitted to schools in which staffing requirements or physical changes on which to base integration have not been made because of lack of resources.
  A local authority that tries to pioneer the provision of such resources without waiting for central provision may find itself locked in combat with the Secretary of State for the Environment because it has exceeded the increasingly detailed spending limits that he seeks to set on every aspect of local government expenditure. I criticise not only the Government's inability to release additional resources, but the whole apparatus of local government as it is being changed and developed. A local authority that sets out to meet those targets is likely to fall foul of the Government's determination to control and limit every detail of local government expenditure.
  It would be tragic if, in the International Year of Disabled People, the major contribution that we seek to make were to be frustrated in that way. No one would resist the enshrinement in law of the principles in the Bill or deny the possibility of improving such things as parents' rights, but we are bound to be concerned that expectations may have been created that will not be satisfied.
  10.18 pm
  Mr. Greenway: I welcome the Bill, but I put down a marker. It is easy to be carried away and not to realise that it requires tremendous changes in attitude from parents, teachers and pupils.
  School life will have to change. Pupils will have to receive among them a new kind of pupil—the disabled or those with special difficulties. From my own experience I know that it can be done, but not without effort. Able pupils will have to accommodate the less able, and less able pupils will have to learn to work with those more able and even less able than they are.
  Teachers will have problems to get groups of children of varied physical attributes to work happily together in class and outside. Teachers ask me to explain that it is not easy to leave children to play together where some have special educational needs or other handicaps and may be undermined by the others. It will be a job to establish the right attitudes and to avoid bullying. The House must recognise that, even though the teaching profession welcomes the job given to it in this bold Bill.
  Mrs. Warnock is quoted as speaking against the Bill. I heard her say that she welcomed the Bill. She thought it remarkable that the work that she had led was going into legislation so quickly, and she was impressed and delighted. Although she had not achieved all that she set out to achieve, she had achieved quite a lot. She welcomed the Bill. I have heard her speak about the Bill many times, but I have never heard any kind of miserable denunciation from her.
  498
  One must also point out, not meanly, but as a fact, that the Labour Government had the opportunity to implement the Warnock report but did nothing about it. It therefore does not come well from Labour Members to say that we have not done enough. We have done something where they did nothing.
  As I said in my earlier short speech, the Bill is about parity of esteem between all children and ultimately throughout society. I believe that the Bill will take us along that important social road. At times it is a difficult educational road, but I believe that the schools and all connected with them will welcome it and that parents will support the legislation as it is implemented. I believe that the Bill will benefit our country and society at large. I warmly welcome it.
  10.21 pm
  Mr. Whitehead: It would have been more appropriate if the Opposition could have said as our final word on the Bill in this place that we wish it a fair wind, that we thank Mrs. Warnock and her committee and endorse the work done by many people, including those who drafted the Bill and brought it to this stage, and that we expect it to come back with even more improvements from the House of Lords.
  I must, however, take this opportunity to reply briefly to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), because I feel a sense of personal affront in two ways. First, I was a member of the Special Standing Committee. Secondly, I was a member of the Select Committee on Procedure, of which one other member is present, which made the recommendation that led to the procedure being used.
  It would be absolutely wrong if the impression were left on Third Reading of the Bill that the three sittings at which we heard the witnesses and the various lobbies that came forward were other than comprehensive, constructive and extremely useful. I believe that those sittings improved the Bill by setting a context in which the Committee could think and argue as a Committee. Time after time today hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to that. After hearing the witnesses and the discussion, and certainly after the further discussion that the Opposition had with some 70 of the lobbies, we were able to see the problem posed by the Bill in the round.
  A personal attack of this kind in the style of the hon. Member for Wokingham upon my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) as Chairman of the Special Standing Committee introduced an unnecessary and lamentably sour note into our proceedings. In the few moments since the accusation was made we have examined the report of the three sittings involved. At no stage did any hon. Member of any party raise as a point of order his inability to ask a question. On only two occasions that we can see did the Chairman reprove any hon. Member for verbosity or for wishing to ask more than one question. One was my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), as reported at column 135, the other the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey), at column 112. That seems fairly even-handed.
  Finally, when we envisaged the procedure of combining the Select Committee and the Standing Committee and the members of both under the Chairman of the Select Committee it was obvious and inevitable that Select Committee procedure would be used. In a Select Committee, the Chairman takes the lead and asks a great

  499
  many questions. If the hon. Member for Wokingham wishes to ridicule and demean the procedures that we used in the Special Standing Committee, I suggest that he should examine comparable procedures in Select Committees and tell us how often the Chairman took the initiative and what proportion of questions were asked by the Chairman giving the lead on each group of subjects. That is why in this case the Chairman asked 40 questions. He was not unfair to any member of the Committee. He did not seek to prevent any hon. Member from getting in or in any way diminish the procedures which, I believe, were a valuable part of our joint deliberations on the Bill.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I shall not enter into the question of the proceedings of the Select Committee on Education, of which I am not a member, although there are other hon. Members present who are on that Committee and who have very strong views about the matter. They can be pushed at another time. Concerning the Special Standing Committee, however, I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he contests the careful figures that I have given. If he does not, how does he justify such an overwhelming proportion of the questions being asked by a combination of Chairman and Labour members of the Committee?
  Mr. Kinnock: That is absolutely outrageous.
  Mr. Whitehead: It was an extremely tendentious question, and I do not for a moment propose to justify it. If there is a Chairman who happens to be of our party—and a minority of the Chairmen of Select Committees are of our party—and one adds the Chairman's questions to the questions put by members of his party, a majority of questions can be arrived at in that way. But I do not for one moment see what that proves.
  500
  My point is that at no stage in the course of the proceedings in Committee did any Conservative Member, or, for that matter, the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), who represented the Liberal Party, or any Labour Member, raise a point of order or subsequently complain or table a motion criticising the Chairman of the Committee. I greatly deplore the fact that that has been done in the House tonight. It has soured what ought to be a warm welcome to the Bill. I wish the Bill god-speed in its progress to the other place.
  10.27 pm
  Dr. Boyson: With the leave of the House, I should like briefly to reply to the debate. I concur with what has been said by other hon. Members by way of thanks to Mrs. Warnock and the members of the committee who laid the groundwork for the Bill. We had a good Standing Committee. The arguments that we had there were good tempered and worth while, as they have been today. We have had an argument about resources.
  Mr. Field: Mainly from the Opposition Benches.
  Dr. Boyson: I shall not even disagree with that comment at this late hour. We are spending up to £½ billion on special education. It is a considerable sum. We should all like to spend more. We have maintained in real terms the expenditure on special education though the numbers have been dropping. That means that in real terms more will be spent per pupil in the next two or three years than is being spent now.
  I am sure that we would all want to speed the Bill now to the House of Lords.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  10.27 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that the House of Lords completed its consideration of the Bill at 4.46 pm yesterday, and that the Lords amendments were available in the House of Commons Vote Office only at midday today? May I seek your advice on whether Back-Bench Members of this House have been given a proper opportunity to scrutinise the Lords amendments and to table further amendments? Will you also tell us whether you have any way of protecting the House from a Government who are seeking to railroad a highly controversial and obnoxious piece of legislation?
  Mr. Donald Dewar: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to delay the House—I hope that we shall be having a reasonably brief debate in a minute or two—but I should like to add my protest, on behalf of the official Opposition, and to invoke your assistance, because the final stage of the Bill, the consideration of Lords amendments, is appearing with almost indecent haste.
  The Third Reading in the House of Lords is a stage at which amendments can be moved, so that there is a genuine difficulty, in that we did not know the final state of the Bill—because it could well have changed during yesterday's consideration in the Lords—until a very late stage. Hon. Members would have had to show enormous agility and manoeuvrability if they were to have an opportunity of looking at the final form of the Bill and making amendments to their Lordships' final version.
  I hope that Conservative Members will not take it amiss if I say that I fear that the only interpretation of events is that Bill's controversial parts—which will now be considered—have guaranteed that this non-controversial but important matter of, for example, the disabled has been sacrificed. The Government have made a headlong rush to get an obnoxious measure on to the statute book. Hon. Members face a problem. Other amendments might have been tabled if there had been time for consideration.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If hon. Members are concerned because they feel that they might not have had sufficient opportunity to consider the Lords amendments, I should point out that all the amendments that are before us were passed not less than a week ago. The other place did not pass any amendments last night. Therefore, hon. Members have had at least a week in which to consider their response to them.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister's reply does not answer the point that has been made. Hon. Members were not to know what the other place would do yesterday. Only the Government seemed to know that the matter would be brought before us, because for some reason they assumed that the other place would grant Third Reading. The rest of us could not assume that.
  502
  There is a practical problem. Amendments had to be lodged a few days ago. They were lodged blindly, because the Bill's exact lineage was not available to hon. Members. Although we may triumph in the fairly simple amendments before us, the principle involved in bringing a Bill from the other place in such a short space of time is bad. It could cause extreme difficulty in future unless the Chair is prepared to protect our rights against the Government's infringements.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): The Chair is not responsible for the timetable in the other place or for the business that the Government may seek to put before the House. Hon. Members will know that Lords Amendments are frequently taken at short notice. Shall we get on?
  Mr. Harry Ewing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members are in difficulty. The Bill is being dealt with with indecent haste, largely because the Government wish to justify the Secretary of State's pre-emptive statement on the question of penalising authorities which "overspend". Would it be possible to ask Mr. Speaker to refer this Bill and other Bills to the Select Committee on Procedure? Perhaps the issue could be considered against the background of the Government's timetabling of the following week's business when that business is before the other place.
  Since the Conservative Party came to power, the other place has had more work to do. It has had to correct the Government's legislation. During the past two and a half years the House has often been placed in extreme difficulty because Lords amendments are made after next week's business has been announced. I should be grateful. Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you would draw Mr. Speaker's attention to our exchanges. Perhaps Mr. Speaker would consider referring this matter to the Select Committee on Procedure with the aim of ensuring that the Government treat the House fairly.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to Mr. Speaker's attention. However, the hon. Gentleman's dispute is not with the Chair but with the Leader of the House, who is responsible for tabling the business of the House.

Clause 36

  PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND CONSIDERATION OF THE NEEDS OF THE DISABLED
  Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 16 line 5, leave out "In determining any" and insert "When granting an".
  Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following:
  Lords amendment No. 2.
  Lords amendment No. 3, in page 16, line 12, leave out from "duty" to end of line 19, and the amendment thereto, at end add
  'and insert
  "and for this purpose each local planning authority shall designate one of its officers to act as liaison officer and co-ordinator in the area of that authority on all matters involving access for disabled people to buildings and other facilities and the application of the British Standards Institution Code of

  503
  Practice on Access for the Disabled to Buildings BS 5810: 1979, or such other code or codes as the Secretary of State may prescribe".'.
  Lords amendment No. 4, after clause 36, in page 16, line 19, insert new clause A (Further provision as regards the needs of the disabled):
  "(1) In each of sections 4(1), 5(1), 6(2), 8(1) and 8A(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (which impose on persons undertaking the provision of public buildings etc. certain duties as regards the needs of the disabled)—

  (a) for the words "provision, in so far as it is in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable" there shall be substituted the words "appropriate provision"; and

  (b) at the end there shall be added the words "unless such body as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State is satisfied, after carrying out any procedures which may be so prescribed, that in the circumstances it is either not practicable to make such provision or not reasonable that such pro vision should be made."

  (2) After the said section 4(1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  "(1A) In subsection (1) above "appropriate provision" in relation to any case means provision conforming with so much of the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings as is relevant to that case and "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and in the foregoing provisions of this subsection "the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings" means the British Standards Institution code of practice referred to as BS 5810: 1979."
  (3) After the said section 5(1) the following words shall be inserted as section 5(1A)—
  "Subsection (1A) of section 4 of this Act shall apply in relation to the interpretation of the last foregoing subsection of this section as the said subsection (1A) applies in relation to the interpretation of subsection (1) of that section.";
  and the same words shall be inserted as sections 6(2A), 8(1A) and 8A(1A) of the said Act of 1970.
  (4) In section 28 of the said Act of 1970 (which empowers the Secretary of State to define certain expressions appearing therein), after the word "Parliament" there shall be inserted"—
  (a)" and at the end there shall be added the words "; or
  (b) amend the definition of "the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings" in section 4(1A) of this Act."."
  The amendments thereto; in subsection (1)(b), leave out
  'such body as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State'
  and insert
  'the local building control authority'.
  In subsection (1)(b), leave out
  'such body as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State'
  and insert
  'the building control department of the relevant local authority'
  Lords amendment No. 6, in clause 42, page 17, line 23, leave out "Section 29" and insert "Sections 29 and A", and the amendment thereto, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment".
  The amendment to the Bill in lieu thereof: In page 17, line 22, at end insert
  '() Section (Further provision as regards the needs of the disabled) shall come into force on 31st December 1981.'
  Lords amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 10.
  Mr. Rifkind: On Lords Amendment No. 1, the clause as drafted would require local authorities to ensure that developers were aware of their duty under the 1970 Act, even if the local authority intended to refuse to grant planning permission. Clearly that is an unnecessary requirement in the present drafting and the amendment seeks to ensure that that requirement applies only in cases where it is intended to grant planning permission.
  504
  Amendment No. 2 is a technical amendment, which removes from the clause an unnecessary reference to section 6 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. It is a technical drafting amendment.
  Amendment No. 3 removes from the clause the references to the code of practice for access for the disabled to buildings and the Secretary of State's power to substitute any subsequent code of practice. As we now have a new clause to the Bill, when a planning authority draws the attention of a developer to his duties under the 1970 Act he will be made aware of the existence of the code practice. Therefore, there is no need to make specific provision in this clause.
  Amendment No. 6 is consequential on amendment No. 4, to which I shall speak in a moment. It introduces no new element of policy.
  Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are also technical amendments, consequential on the amendment to the clause that deletes the power in that clause to amend the definition of the code of practice for access for the disabled to buildings.
  Amendment No. 10 is consequential on the new clause amending the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
  Amendment No. 4 is the substantial amendment in this group. It is the only one that has significant policy implications. It amends the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. In that Act a requirement is placed on developers to make provision for the disabled in buildings that are to be open to the public, in so far as it is reasonable and practical to do so.
  The amendment will replace that requirement by a requirement to make provision in every case unless a body to be prescribed in regulations is satisfied after carrying out any procedures that may be prescribed, that in the circumstances of the case it is not practicable or reasonable for such provision to be made. In short, it transfers the onus of determining whether it is practicable and reasonable to make provision for the needs of disabled people from the developer to an independent party.
  I hope that the House will recognise that this change represents a significant step forward. It represents the Government's consideration of the whole matter in the light of the debates in the House and in another place and our determination to ensure, along with many hon. Members of all parties, that in this International Year of Disabled People there should be significant improvements in our policy.
  Hon. Members will be pleased to know that it is the Government's intention that similar provisions will be extended to the rest of the United Kingdom by means of an amendment to the Disabled Persons (No. 2) Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), which is at present being considered in another place.
  The details of the procedure to be followed under the amendments and the identification of the body that will adjudicate, in cases where the developer does not propose to make appropriate provision, will require to be considered carefully. It is our intention to undertake substantial consultations with interested parties, including the disabled, before determining the content of the regulations which the new clause gives my right hon. Friend power to make.
  I hope that these amendments will be acceptable to the House. I have heard that they were welcomed in another

  505
  place. They are similar to suggestions advocated by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and by other hon. Members of all parties. I hope that the amendments will now be approved by the House.
  Mr. Home Robertson: When, in committee, I opportunistically tabled a new clause to provide better arrangements for access for the disabled to public buildings, I never in my wildest dreams imagined that it would lead to the new clause that we are now considering. By a series of happy events this has turned into a major breakthrough for disabled people, coming at a most opportune time, during this International Year of Disabled People.
  There is still a tremendous amount to be done for disabled people, but if they are to be able to play their part in society, as they should be, one of the first things that we should do for them is to make sure that they can at least go to the usual places that normal members of the public can visit—shops, offices and other public buildings.
  This experience has been most encouraging to me, not least because it shows that once in a blue moon an initiative by an Opposition Back Bencher can lead to improvements in the law. In fairness, I should also pay tribute to the Under-Secretary for moving as far and as fast as he has on this important issue, in spite of the known hostility of his friends in the Department of the Environment. Indeed, it appears that by leaning against an almost open door in the Scottish Office those who are concerned about access for the disabled have been able to outflank the Department of the Environment, which is a good thing.
  New clause A is the one redeeming feature in a fundamentally obnoxious and shocking Bill, which will do great harm to local government and probably indirectly cause great hardship to many groups of needy people, including the disabled
  The most welcome and significant of these Lords amendments is Lords amendment No. 4, which could make it possible at last to enforce the access provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Those provisions laid a duty on developers to provide access for disabled people to new buildings, but the Act failed to appoint an authority to enforce that duty. It became clear that it was only too easy to turn a blind eye to the obligation. One has only to look at any recently built public building in any High Street in any town in the United Kingdom to see that the branches of chain stores have one or two steps at their entrance, a narrow door, or an awkward passage, all of which are impossible obstacles for people who have to move around in wheelchairs.
  The let-out in the 1970 Act was that provision did not have to be made unless it was "practicable and reasonable". Worse than that, no particular body was designated to have the authority to enforce that duty. Therefore, the provision has in effect been a dead letter ever since 1970–11 long years for disabled people.
  Lords amendment No. 4 provides that a developer must prove that such provision is unreasonable or impracticable before he is granted a waiver by an as yet unspecified authority. Indeed, he must prove that it is not reasonable or practicable before he is allowed to proceed with erecting a building without proper facilities for disabled people.
  506
  This was called for by the Silver Jubilee committee on access for the disabled. The amendment puts the onus of proof that something is impracticable or unreasonably fairly and squarely where it belongs—on the shoulders of developers.
  The amendment is welcome, but I am concerned about three remaining unanswered questions. First, we do not know who will be responsible for enforcing the provision. It has been made clear that the burden of proof is being transferred to the developer, but we do not yet know to whom that proof will have to be furnished.
  Secondly, when will the new provisions come into effect? I repeat that disabled people have had to wait 11 years for the coming into effect of the access provisions of the 1970 Act even to be thought of. The Minister should tell the House when he expects the provisions to come into effect in Scotland. On the assumption that local authorities will be given the job of enforcing the provisions, no guarantee appears to have yet been given that the authorities will be geared to applying proper consideration to their new duties.
  10.45 pm
  Three sets of amendments have therefore been tabled. The first requires local authorities to appoint access officers to carry out the functions that I have discussed. The second specifies that building control authorities should be responsible for enforcing the provisions. The third ensures that the new provisions shall come into effect during the course of this year—the International Year of Disabled People.
  I wish to dwell for a moment on the question of access officers. It is right to expect that the local authorities assuming these responsibilities should designate one of their officers to co-ordinate consideration of the needs of disabled people. The Scottish Committee on Access for Disabled People made representations to COSLA some time ago. COSLA, in turn, recommended that all Scottish local authorities should designate voluntarily one of their officers to be an access officer. Forty-eight of the local planning and building control authorities in Scotland responded voluntarily and positively to the request by designating one of their officers to be an access officer. Two authorities, Gordon district council and Dumfries and Galloway regional council, refused. It is perhaps pure coincidence that these two authorities are Conservative-controlled.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that neither authority is Conservative-controlled. Both are controlled by Independents.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I am glad to hear that there is some doubt about the political allegiance of those who dominate those two local authorities. This is perhaps a foretaste of the meanness to be expected from Conservative and Right-Wing local authorities under the new regime introduced by the Bill.
  I spoke yesterday by telephone to Mr. Alexander Farquhar, of the Scottish Committee on Access for Disabled People, who confirmed that the committee had strong feelings towards the two defaulting authorities. He expressed the fear that if two authorities could get away with this kind of attitude, others might opt to follow, especially when authorities in the coming months and years will be so pinched for funds.
  If these two authorities and, perhaps, others were to resist the proposal that they should designate an access

  507
  officer for disabled people, a situation could arise in which those authorities would not be able to deal efficiently with complicated and specialised matters. The needs of the disabled would not be properly met within defaulting authority areas. It is only too possible that the needs of the disabled would fall between two stools. Neither the building control committee nor the planning committee might properly consider a matter, with the result that nothing happened.
  In the other place the Minister of State referred to a flexible approach to the needs of the disabled. I can think of a number of literal examples of that approach, notably Ayr police station, to which I referred on Report, when the Secretary of State for Scotland, whose constituency is Ayr, was present. It appears that due to muddle in local authority offices, and because no one was dealing properly with the matter, the police authority was able to get away with the suggestion that Ayr police station was not a public building and therefore not subject to the provisions of the Bill.
  In the other place the Government were pressed on the issue of the defaulting authorities. Only yesterday the Minister of State said:
  "I propose, therefore, to have arrangements made for the question of the attitude adopted by these two authorities to be considered further with the Convention."
  That is not good enough. The disabled are fed up with having their needs considered; it is time for action. The Minister of State said that:
  "such a measure could not have been reconciled with the general policy of legislating to require local authorities to make particular appointments only where this is regarded as being absolutely essential, it would have been insulting to the many authorities which have made appropriate arrangements without any hint of pressure from the Government—
  We propose to draw attention to the arrangements which have been made for designating access officers in the forthcoming circular to local authorities on the access provisions of the Bill."—[Official Report, House of Lords,9 June 1981; Vol. 421, c. 128–9.]
  I shall say more about that circular later.
  The Minister's arguments against requiring local authorities to designate access officers are pitiful. Does he really think that a local authority that has appointed an access officer voluntarily will take umbrage if a defaulting authority is subsequently required by statute to make an appointment? That is rubbish. Equally, the argument that there are no precedents for imposing a statutory requirement to appoint local authority officers is weak. I did some homework and discovered that under section 64 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 a number of local authority officers must be appointed because of statutory provisions—for example, chief fire officers and members of fire brigades, electoral registration officers, directors of education, weights and measures inspectors, directors of social work, reporters to children's panels and agricultural analysts and deputies. If there is a statutory requirement on local authorities to employ agricultural analysts and deputies, it is not unreasonable to suggest—especially in view of the complicted nature of the legislation—that local authorities should be required to appoint access officers.
  I feel strongly about the issue. I appeal to the Minister to say something constructive. If he does not, I cannot rule out the possibility that I may press the relevant amendment to a vote. I shall be interested to see whether he is
  508
  prepared, at this time of night, to dragoon Conservative Members into the Division Lobbies to vote against a better provision for the disabled.
  I wish to press the Minister to confide in the House about whom he has in mind to be the body prescribed by the Secretary of State to be responsible for the new functions. The Scottish Committee on Access for Disabled People favours local building control authorities. That appears to be a reasonable suggestion. They would have suitably qualified staff, and already process building control applications. It would be helpful if the Minister would say whether he would be prepared to accept an amendment at this stage.
  Further points about the as yet unspecified designated authority need to be answered. First, can developers appeal against the decisions of the body, and if so, to whom? Secondly, can individuals or organizations interested in the disabled appeal against waivers granted by the as yet unspecified authority? If so, to whom—will it be the Secretary of State? Very much appears to depend on the terms of the circular that has been promised about the handling of the consideration of the needs of the disabled by planning authorities. I am a little worried about ministerial backsliding on that issue. On March 23 I pressed the Secretary of State to clarify whether planners had the power to require developers to provide for the disabled. He said:
  "Access for the disabled is certainly a material consideration … the Government are prepared to make it clear to planning authorities that this is so. The circular will set out to try and do that."
  He went on:
  "It is the case that a planning authority may impose conditions. That will be strengthened by a circular telling them that they jolly well ought to impose conditions."—[Official Report, 23 March 1981; Vol. 1, c. 753–4.]
  Now we have the benefit of access to the draft circular. In my opinion it is rather feeble, particularly in view of the Secretary of State's brave statements not so long ago. It says:
  "The extent to which the provision of facilities for the disabled is a material planning consideration will depend on the circumstances of each case. The internal layout and design of buildings and the details of the provision of facilities within buildings are not normally matters with which planning authorities should be concerned. However, the arrangements for access to buildings may"—
  I stress "may"—
  "be planning matters and the suitability of the arrangements for use by the public, including disabled members of the public, can raise issues of public amenity which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, would be material to a planning application."
  It says further on:
  "Where appropriate, conditions may"—
  again, I stress "may"—
  "be attached to a grant of planning permission to deal with the matter."
  That does not fulfil the undertaking given by the Secretary of State last month. As this equivocation has occurred so soon, it is not surprising that the Minister is coming under pressure at this stage to provide something more specific.
  Finally, and for the same reasons, I urge the Minister to give us a clear undertaking that the provisions will come into effect during 1981—the International Year of Disabled People.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: As the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has stolen most of my thunder, I shall be commendably brief. I do not

  509
  necessarily share his eulogy on the Government in connection with the amendment adopted by the House of Lords.
  The Government's attitude on Report was niggardly and parsimonious. They were not prepared to concede much to help the disabled. Because of pressure in the House of Lords—not to mention pressure from the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian in Committee, pressure from the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), over a period, in relation to his own Bill, and other offerings on Report from myself and other hon. Members—the Government eventually conceded in the House of Lords that they would have to do something.
  The Government deserve credit only by contrast with the even more reprehensible conduct of the Department of Environment, which otherwise would have done nothing at all for the disabled in the year that has been designated for their benefit.
  The amendment adopted by the Lords strengthens the existing position and is to be welcomed. However, its drafting is deficient in many respects. Some of its deficiences were alluded to by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian. The first concerns the timing. Lord Mansfield, in the other place, was asked on several occasions when the measure would come into effect. The nearest that he came to being pinned down was when he said that he hoped that it would come into effect during this year of the disabled, 1981, but that he could give no guarantees, because of the continuing consultations that were to take place. That is not good enough.
  During our late-night sitting on the Education (Scotland) Bill I referred to the system of junior colleges that has been enshrined in Education Acts since 1945 but never initiated. In the debate in the House of Lords, one of the noble Ladies gave an example of legislation in 1976 which is still awaiting implementation. So the House should be given a starting date for this provision.
  The second matter relates to control. We have to await regulations that are unspecified. We do not know what they will contain. Unless we know their content we may find them unsatisfactory. That is why the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian, myself and my right hon. Friend tabled amendments to place specific responsibility on the building control departments of local authorities.
  I associate myself with the amendment of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian that relates to access officers. I see no reason why there should not be legislative proposals for access officers, which would involve no additional public expenditure. It is a matter of designation rather than appointment.
  11 pm
  My second criticism is directed to the absence of sanctions. Apparently there are two local authorities that ignore arrangements for the disabled. There must be some provision that the Government have in mind apart from the issuing of circulars to ensure that the statutory obligations are fulfilled. The Bill is full of onerous sanctions. The local authorities will be clubbed to death if they dare step out of line with the Government's strategy. Surely some sanction could have been incorporated to take care of local authorities that might default in respect of the disabled.
  I was not impressed by the way in which Lord Mansfield failed to answer the specific questions that were
  510
  directed to him on 2 June in another place. He failed yesterday to make more detailed replies when he had the opportunity to do so. We are still not much wiser about when the provisions will come into effect, the nature of the regulations, and the identity of the prescribed body for monitoring them and injecting facilities for the disabled. The Government have made a stab in the right direction, but they have not responded in a proper professional manner. The late moment at which the measure will come into effect demonstrates the grudging and belated way in which they have responded to appeals from organisations representing the disabled and to pressure from Opposition parties.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: I pay a warm tribute to the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) for the initiative that he has taken and the work that he has done. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is once in a blue moon that the actions of a Member of Parliament lead to change. I think that he has broken through the blue moon barrier. That is a tribute to him and a tribute to the Scottish Office for responding to the hon. Gentleman's arguments. Our democracy works in no other way than when an hon. Member makes a proposal, if it is seen to be wise and sensible the authorities respond thereto.
  The hon. Gentleman referred rightly to the delay in implementation. That is something that I underline. He was right to devote a considerable part of his speech to access officers. My Liberal colleagues in another place, and notably Lord Thurso, laid stress on them. The basic question is whether provision for the disabled should be required generally to be available. As a believer in local democracy I am reluctant to enforce views on local authorities. However, the position of the disabled is such that their rights should properly be nationally defined. That is a view that is accepted by many on both sides of the House.
  For that reason I support warmly what the hon. Gentleman said, which covered what the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) in turn has done over a long period, to which I pay tribute. Equally, I pay tribute to what the Liberal Party has sought to do. The Government have responded to pressure. They would not lose anything or be deflected seriously from their policies if they accepted all the amendments. It would not make any difference to what they are doing. It would be a significant contribution in the International Year of Disabled People if they were to indicate that they share the feelings of hon. Members in all parts of the House who do not want to make a party issue of this. Therefore, I ask the Minister if he will make a gesture to the disabled. It would not cost much money and it would be responded to warmly.
  11.6 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: May I crave indulgence to intervene briefly in the debate? I am grateful for the references that have been made to the Disabled Persons (No. 2) Bill, in which I am interested and which is analogous to the Bill under discussion.
  I should like to raise with the Minister questions that were put in the House of Lords on Report on 2 June by Baroness Masham of Ilton, because the answers would be as relevant to my Bill as to this Bill. The questions that she put to the Minister, the Earl of Mansfield, were these:
  "I should like to ask the noble Earl the Minister just a few questions."—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not quote what was said; he may paraphrase it.
  Mr. Wigley: I defer to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Baroness Masham was interested to know who the prescribed body would be and whether the local authority would be responsible for building regulations. That point has been brought up by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). Lady Masham also asked who would check on the facilities for disabled people, which is important. She wanted to know whether that would be done at the same time as other regulations were being checked.
  A pertinent question put by her was: if the developer disagreed with the prescribed body, would he be allowed to appeal against the decision and would the appeal go to the court or to the Secretary of State? If the developer did not introduce the facilities that were required, she wanted to know what sanctions the prescribed body would have and whether they would be identical to those under normal building regulations.
  Those were all relevant questions. When answering the debate the Earl of Mansfield failed to respond to them but said that they would be dealt with in due course; he said that perhaps they would try to answer some of them before Third Reading but, if not, discussion would take place thereafter. At Third Reading there was no progress on answering the questions. Some of them need an answer. For instance, if fines were to be used, would that not require primary legislation? Therefore, are we in a situation in which fines are ruled out as a sanction against those who do not carry out the requirements of the legisaltion?
  It is relevant to define the prescribed body. There is a strong body of opinion not only in Scotland, as we have heard, but in England and Wales, that local authorities that are in charge of building regulations ought to be the prescribed bodies. If the Minister can go no further, I ask him to give some indication of Government thinking on the prescribed body. That is centrally relevant to the effectiveness of the new clause.
  The new clause is to be welcomed, provided that it is effective. To be effective, we have to know how it will operate. Saying that that will be determined by regulations at a later stage does not throw enough light on the central question around which the matter revolves.
  I ask the Minister, for the benefit to the people not only of Scotland, but of Wales and England, who in this instance are following Scotland—I congratulate the Scottish Office on having taken this initiative—to provide some clarity, as it will be of great importance and relevance to many people who are following the debate.
  Mr. Dewar: I made my protest, which I shall not repeat, about tie timing of the debate. It is extraordinary that we should be considering the Lords amendments while their Lordships' voices are practically dying away in the corridor outside the door. The term "indecent haste", which has been mentioned more than once, is entirely appropriate.
  We are fortunate that a number of hon. Members who have shown persistent and justified interest in this area were watching closely and making contingency plans
  512
  about what might happen on Third Reading in another place. Those plans fortunately turned out to be justified and allowed us to put down appropriate amendments to have a proper debate tonight. That is not a satisfactory basis on which to proceed, however. Although there may be precedents—I have not been in this place long enough to be able to bandy them—for us to consider Lords amendments within less than 24 hours of their Lordships having finalised them, they are bad and should not be followed as a general rule.
  The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill is to be generally welcomed. There is an area of sanity in a Bill which is marked not by sanity, but by arbitrary and vindictive spleen which has been shown consistently by Conservative Ministers towards local government in Scotland.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will not think me ungracious if I say that I shall not add to the general praise of the Government for having brought forward the measures. In a sense, it is undeserved praise. When the Bill first saw the light of day, there was nothing in it about access for the disabled. The clause which we are now considering, which has gone through certain stages of development, is entirely the result of activity by Back Benchers who are not members of the Minister's party. I add my praise to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who first introduced the question of access for the disabled into the Bill.
  I shall give some praise to the Minister, although it is tepid. He has shown some flexibility. He has been harried and has given ground. At various stages, he has accepted what is cumulatively a significant improvement in access. There would have been absolutely nothing in the Bill at all if my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian, in consultation with the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) and one or two others, had not taken the initiative and pointed a pistol at the Minister's head by introducing his version, which he hoped would meet the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian took the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, looked at section 4 and recognised, as did many of us, that it had started out with high aspirations but that there had been little action. It was not an adequate way of ensuring that access to public buildings was properly considered.
  The hon. Member put down a new clause to ensure that the duty to consider the disabled and the possibilities of access was carried out. It was because the Minister felt that, faced with that initiative, he could not fail to make some sort of response that we started on the trail. A Government new clause was put down. Efforts were made to amend it. The Government gave a little more ground, the new clause ended up in the House of Lords and they gave further ground.
  11.15 pm
  It is not a case of the Minister setting out with good intentions. What good has been done has been done by stealth. So far as Scottish local authorities are concerned, this Government do as much harm as they can and as much good as they must. We are grateful to a number of hon. Members for forcing the Government to do good. The praise should go to them.
  Having said that, of course I welcome the position at which we have finally arrived. It is an important step that

  513
  efforts are now being made to make section 4 of the 1970 Act that bit more effective. Even those who take only the most cursory interest in the cause of the disabled will heartily welcome the removal or final death of that famous qualification
  "in so far as it is in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable".
  The onus shifts to the developer. I hope that that will be an impetus to local authorities to use the power of scrutiny to which the Minister drew attention in a circular and that we may see a much more positive effort to ensure that the interests of the disabled are specifically looked to when planning permission is considered.
  All hon. Members wish to give a fair wind to the new clause, but I add my voice to those of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) and others who suggest that the Minister should look with sympathy at a clutch of amendments put down to their Lordships' final version. I believe that those who spoke in the debate in another place would add their weight to the appeal.
  The question of liaison officers is very important. There is always difficulty in putting statutory forms of words into practice. We may now have a section 4 of the 1970 Act that is much more satisfactory, but, unfortunately, it does not necessarily follow from that legal legislative development that we shall see the positive monitoring of a development with the interests of the disabled in mind that we should all like. It is an important safeguard to have someone in the local authority with a statutory duty to carry out the scrutiny.
  The Minister may ask why we are getting hot under the collar. After all, 48 out of 50 Scottish planning authorities have already done it. However, that is a double-edged argument. If the vast majority of authorities accept and recognise the virtue of making the appointment, we should ensure that it becomes universal and is honoured right across the board.
  I do not pass judgment on Dumfries and Galloway or Gordon. I do not want to enter into political semantics with the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), about whether they are independent Conservatives, Conservative independents or what. That is not the point. Here are two local authorities which, for reasons best known to themselves, have appointed a liaison officer, which, I believe, hon. Members universally feel should be an office filled in every local authority.
  The hon. Member for Caernarvon mentioned sanctions. I do not know whether we need sanctions in the Bill, but the machinery under the old 1966 Act has been revamped in an unnecessarily severe fashion in clause 13 by the sanction for excessive and unreasonable expenditure. Under the old Act there were sanctions for authorities that underspent and did not provide a decent level of service. The failure to give proper weight and energy to enforcing reasonable access for the disabled may be a sign that an authority is not providing a proper range of services for those in its area.
  I believe that there is an overwhelming case for the appointment of liaison officers. If the Minister tries to shelter behind the voluntary principle, I can only say that, having sat through the lengthy and convoluted Committee stage and having considered the consequences of the extremely severe penal sanctions, the straitjacket placed
  514
  on local authorities and the constant encroachment upon their freedom of manoeuvre, the Opposition will give only a mighty horse laugh if the Minister suggests that in some way the principle of freedom for local authorities makes it abhorrent to suggest that there should be a designated officer to deal with access for the disabled.
  Mr. Barry Henderson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, with the best will in the world, to bureaucratise, to be precise in definition and so forth is no substitute for a broad acceptance of the spirit of the matter with regard to access for the disabled? I could cite an example of a disabled person, hearing that a local labatory had been made available for the disabled, went to try it and found great difficulty of access. When he went to the local authority, he was told that it had been constructed according to all the diagrams and specifications laid down in the book, but the authority had not actually asked a disabled person whether it was a sensible thing to do.
  Mr. Dewar: I regard that as a splendid argument for the appointment of a liaison officer who would ask the disabled whether it was suitable. I am genuinely obliged to the hon. Member, who, as always, perhaps unintentionally, has been extremely helpful. He is, of course, right about the importance of general acceptance and good will. As we all know, when the 1970 Act was passed the House thought that the problem was solved, yet 11 years later we are still struggling to get this right.
  The appointment of a liaison officer would not infringe the voluntary principle in any way, nor would it infringe the rather mean approach to local government finance that the Minister has to observe. I therefore echo the appeal that has been made. There is every reason for making a gesture on this occasion, perhaps showing a generous turn of mind and introducing a little variety into the conduct of the Conservative Administration. Such a gesture would receive a very warm welcome indeed.
  Finally, the timing is important. When Governments make statements about their intention to move as quickly as possible but immediately add that there must be consultation, warning bells start to ring. In my experience, consultation can become an unco' long process unless there is a terminal date which must be met and to which Ministers are committed. It would seem to me a simple concept to aim to complete this round of not very complicated administrative considerations within the International Year of Disabled Persons.
  Back Benchers have done something good on this occasion in managing to jockey the Minister along and jolly him into improving the legal structure and the possibilities of access for the disabled. Nevertheless, more could be done. The Minister would make a real contribution if he accepted our additional amendments. The hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) rightly spoke of the importance of good will and the willingness to show good will. It would be a splendid example if the Minister would show the necessary flexibility to take on board these very small but important additional moves, which would do a great deal to bolster and define the limited but useful changes that he is now introducing.
  11.23 pm
  Mr. Rifkind: I thank Opposition Members who, with the conspicuous but unfortunately predictable exception of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar),

  515
  have welcomed the spirit in which the Government and the Scottish Office have responded to the points made by Opposition Members and, indeed, some of my hon. Friends in Committee by introducing amendments in another place and, indeed, in the Committee to deal with questions of access for the disabled.
  The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) called upon the Government to make a gesture. The hon. Member for Garscadden asked the Government to be flexible. I think that both hon. Members will feel obliged to concede that the very existence of Government amendments, moved either in this House or in another place, shows that the Government are flexible and anxious to do all that is reasonable in the International Year of the Disabled to help that section of the community.
  I turn to the specific points that were raised. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) asked who would be responsible for enforcement of the requirements.
  I first make the general point that there is to be a process of consultation. One of its primary objectives is to try to establish who would be the best authority to deal with the matter. The Government do not start with any preconceived notion of who that ought to be. Therefore, we are anxious that the consultation should be genuine. There are a number of options that we shall wish to pursue without any degree of commitment at this stage.
  One possibility is obviously the local authority, whether it be the planning department or the building control department. The latter might be even more appropriate, if it is to be the local authority. There have been suggestions that it might be an independent body, such as the Institute of Arbiters, which has experience in dealing with disagreements of this kind. It could be a body specially established for a purpose of this sort. It could be some voluntary organisation with experience in such matters. I put these forward as various options, but at this stage the Government have no preconceived view of what would be the best way of dealing with the matter. We are anxious to hear the views not only of the local authorities but of the disabled and other groups with a legitimate interest.
  The second question, put to me by both the hon. Gentlemen to whom I have referred, related to the time at which the provisions would come into force. They argued—I can understand their argument—that it would be highly desirable that they should come into force during the International Year of Disabled People. We should like that to happen, and hope that it will happen, but I hope that the hon. Gentlemen will accept that for me to give an absolute cast-iron guarantee would be inappropriate at this stage.
  We are already half way through the year. We hope that the consultations will enable us to come to a conclusion during the course of this year. Obviously, there is no particular reason why we should wish to avoid this year. Clearly, it is an appropriate year for any change of this kind. But I cannot give an absolute assurance; I can only say that we shall do our best to achieve that sort of time scale.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: I am not arguing about the Government's good intentions, but surely the Minister is saying that the Government are putting it off.
  Mr. Rifkind: The last thing that I am saying is that we are putting it off. If I were saying that we were not intending to start the negotiations until next year or the year after, or some undefined time, that might be a legitimate accusation to make to me, but I am not saying that. We intend to start the consultations straight away, but I am not able to say how long they will take.
  Hon. Members must remember that it is not only a matter of the consultations; once the consultations have been complete it will be necessary, in terms of the amendment, to frame regulations and to introduce them. Only when the regulations have come into force will it be possible to say that the amendments have taken effect.
  These matters take time. Although I am in no way ruling out the possibility of everything being achieved during the remainder of this year, I cannot give an absolute assurance to that effect. But we intend to start consultations in the very near future, and I can assure the hon. Member for Inverness that we have exactly the same interest as anybody else in ensuring that the matter is properly resolved in as short a time as is reasonable in order to ensure the best result.
  I can tell the hon. Member for Caernarvon that questions such as whether there will be an appeal, and who will check, will be covered in the regulations themselves; therefore, that is obviously what the consultations will also be about. We shall want again to find the views of the local authorities, of the disabled and of other interested parties, before coming to a final view on the matter, but we do not rule out some of the options that hon. Members have suggested. The regulations will obviously have to be framed to cover that sort of area.
  Another important point related to access officers.
  Mr. Wigley: The Minister is now moving away from the question of the building regulations. I mentioned sanctions. Does it need primary legislation to impose sanctions that may take the form of fines? What is the Government's thinking in that regard? Is any time limit set for response from the voluntary organisations, so that the Government can thereafter start working on the draft of the paper?
  11.30 pm
  Mr. Rifkind: On the latter point, we expect a reasonable response from the voluntary organisations and others concerned. We were talking about negotiations that will begin in the near future, and we would expect the information to be coming in within weeks rather than months, but if there is any suggestion of delay on anyone's part we shall want to know why, and shall wish to ensure that we get the information as quickly as possible.
  I cannot at the moment give a certain reply on the question of fines, but I think that the hon. Member for Caernarvon is correct in saying that the imposition of fines would require primary legislation. I shall check and write to him with a specific answer.
  The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian referred to the circular. Clearly the changes under consideraton by the House will mean that a revised circular will be necessary. We intend to issue a revised circular soon, and before sending it to local authorities we shall make it available for consideration by the authorities and other interested bodies. We shall take account of their comments before issuing the final revised circular.
  A number of hon. Members referred to access officers. I listened with amusement to the hon. Member for

  517
  Garscadden calling for rigid requirements to be imposed on local authorities and arguing that the Government and the House should dictate to authorities whom they should appoint. That is slightly different from the arguments that we have heard from the hon. Gentleman on every other part of the Bill.
  The hon. Gentleman conceded that 48 of the 50 planning authorities in Scotland have voluntarily agreed to designate access officers. He appeared to be calling for the Government to impose a statutory obligation, which would apply not only to the two but to every authority. I can see an argument for saying that when the bulk of local authorities, or a significant number of them, are not complying with what Parliament or the Government believe to be the national interest, legislation may be needed to ensure that the majority conform. But, without any question of legislation, and on the request of voluntary bodies, 48 of the 50 planning authorities have done as requested, and there is no reason to believe that the other two will not also do so eventually.
  The hon. Gentleman's argument that we should use the sledgehammer of legislation is slightly different from the arguments used by the Opposition on the rest of the Bill.
  Mr. Dewar: I am delighted to know that the Under-Secretary has been entertained by my efforts. It is a small consolation for a late night, but one that I treasure.
  The Government have encroached on the independence of local authorities in their vital functions, and that has been opposed by every local authority in Scotland—Tory, Labour, Independent or pseudo-Independent. There is an enormous distinction between that sort of legislative tyranny and a suggestion that we should make it a legal rule that a certain officer should be designated for certain duties. A clear consensus is emerging that that is a right and proper policy but, unfortunately, a small group apparently dissents from that view and in those circumstances a legal requirement is not only justified but thoroughly desirable.
  Mr. Rifkind: There has certainly not been a consensus for such a statutory obligation. I notice that neither the hon. Gentleman nor his hon. Friends suggested that they had spoken to COSLA or had had a clear indication from COSLA or any other organisation representing local authorities that they were anxious or willing to have such a statutory obligation.
  It is unusual for Parliament to dictate to a local authority how it should use its employees. Parliament does not even require a local authority to appoint a chief executive or a director of finance. The hon. Gentleman suggests that we should ignore that tradition, even though 48 authorities have already voluntarily done what he seeks.
  I understand that Dumfries and Galloway regional council expects one of its building control officers to pay special regard to the needs of the disabled when access is being considered but does not consider it necessary to appoint someone for this job at this stage. In the forthcoming circular we shall seek to encourage the remaining two local authorities to consider such a designation and we shall discuss with COSLA whether it will support such representations.
  A statutory obligation of this kind is not appropriate. I hope that that will commend itself to the House.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister seems to be setting great store by an as yet undrafted circular, which will not have the force of law anyway. Will he answer my point—that, if local authorities are required by statute to designate, among other people, agricultural analysts—it is not unreasonable, in the International Year of Disabled People, to require local authorities to designate an official to undertake these specialised and complicated functions?
  Mr. Rifkind: First, local authorities are not required to designate their chief executives—
  Mr. Home Robertson: They are required to designate agricultural analysts.
  Mr. Rifkind: That anomaly may exist, but that is no reason for unnecessarily duplicating it. Only two authorities have not already made such a designation voluntarily, and they may be willing to do so in any event—
  Mr. Home Robertson: Then why resist the amendment?
  Mr. Rifkind: For the simple reason that Parliament should be invited to impose statutory obligations on local authorities only when the majority, or a significant number, of them are not carrying out an activity that Parliament is convinced is in the national interest, or when some other important issue needs to be implemented if the majority of local authorities are to conform to a national standard. That does not apply in this case, so there is no common-sense basis for the amendment.
  I believe that the hon. Member for Garscadden is pressing this not because he believes that it makes fundamental difference but because, having achieved significant changes in the Bill—for which I give him credit—he finds it unattractive to give the Government any of the credit. He was surprised to realise that 48 out of the 50 Scottish local authorities would do this, so he is now making an enormous fuss about something that the other two may be pressed to do by circular.
  If the voluntary approach has already succeeded with the majority of authorities, is the hon. Gentleman not making a mountain out of a molehill by suggesting that this is a case for parliamentary enforcement?
  Mr. Home Robertson rose
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Mr. Home Robertson: On a point of order. I had understood that the Lords amendments would be taken one at a time and that we would have an opportunity—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Indeed, they will.
  Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 3, in
  page 16, line 12, leave out from "duty" to end of line 19. Read a Second time.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, at end add
  'and insert "and for this purpose each local planning authority shall designate one of its officers to act as liaison officer and co-ordinator in the area of that authority on all matters involving access for disabled people to buildings and other facilities and the application of the British Standards Institution Code of Practice on Access for the Disabled to Buildings BS 5810: 1979, or other such code or codes as the Secretary of State may prescribe". '.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 10, Noes 63.

  Division No.218]

  [11.40 pm.

  AYES

  Buchan, Norman

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Cryer, Bob

  Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

  Dewar, Donald

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Ewing, Harry

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Home Robertson, John

  Mr. Gordon Wilson and

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Mr. Russell Johnston.

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Grylls, Michael

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bendall, Vivian

  Henderson, Barry

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Blackburn, John

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Buck, Antony

  Major, John

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Mellor, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Colvin, Michael

  Mudd, David

  Cope, John

  Murphy, Christopher

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Needham, Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Newton, Tony

  Eggar, Tim

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Farr, John

  Pollock, Alexander

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Renton, Tim

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Sproat, lain

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Steen, Anthony

  520

  Stevens, Martin

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thompson, Donald

  Wakeham,John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Mr. Selwyn Gummer and

  Wheeler, John

  Mr. Carol Mather.

  Wickenden, Keith

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment, put and agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to Lords amendment No. 4, to which there is an amendment.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The amendment is not being moved.
  Lords amendment No. 4 agreed to.

Clause 42

  SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
  Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 17, line 20, leave out "section 6(7) of the 1956 Act or".
  Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 9 at the same time.
  Mr. Rifkind: These are technical amendments, which have no policy implications. I commend them to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 10 agreed to.

Greenside Special School, Wombwell
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]
11.51 pm
Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I wish to raise the subject of special education facilities for children with speaking and learning difficulties, which is connected with the proposed closure of Greenside special school, Wombwell.
British education aims to develop fully the abilities of individuals both young and old. It seeks to do so not only for their benefit but for that of society as a whole. That aim has assumed a new importance in an age of rapid technological change. We must not forget that education is still compulsory for children aged between 5 and 16. Society has the tremendous responsibility of ensuring that our education standards are as high as possible. That is particularly important for those with learning difficulties.
In the past few years there has been a reduction in the number of schoolchildren. Thus, there has been a reduction in the number of teachers. Unfortunately, the Government decided to reduce the number of teachers almost in proportion to the drop in the number of schoolchildren. Sadly, there has not been much of a reduction in the size of classes. Therefore, today's teachers usually face as difficult a task as that faced in the past two decades. However, the task is not as difficult as that faced four or five decades ago.
In my young days it was common to have 40 or 50 children to a class. Today, there are 20 to 30 children to a class. Even so, with a surplus of teachers, some classes have more than 30 pupils. Unfortunately, little progress has been made in specialist training for disadvantaged children in the last few years. Some progress has, of course, occurred, but no hon. Member can claim to be happy about the situation. To talk to the parents of these unfortunate children makes one realise the good fortune of those who have responsibility for children lucky enough to be born normal.
About 2,000 separate schools, day and boarding, cater for different categories of learning disabilities. There are schools for the blind, the partially sighted, the deaf, the partially hearing, the educationally subnormal, the maladjusted, the physically handicapped and those who are epileptic, autistic or in delicate health. Rarely mentioned are those who suffer from dyslexia. Too many sections of the educational community refuse to accept that it even exists. However, the parents are fully aware of the dangers to a child's future unless special tuition is provided.
The debate still continues about whether children with learning difficulties should be accommodated in special schools or attend ordinary schools. Integration into ordinary schools poses many questions.
There are places for 50 children at the Greenside special school, Wombwell, in the Barnsley metropolitan borough area. Unfortunately, the school has been allowed deliberately to run down. Only 29 places are used. With 40,000 pupils attending schools in the Barnsley area, the provision for children with learning difficulties amounts to about 2 per cent. According to the Warnock report, the provision throughout the country is about 5 per cent. The
522
school is not being closed because there are too many places for children with learning difficulties. The fear is that the decision stems from the Government's attitude in reducing grants for education. Barnsley has obviously to cut back on education spending.
There is no question of a system of integration replacing the existing segregated arrangements. Government expenditure cuts mean that Barnsley has to try to reduce local government spending. I am not certain whether Ministers are aware of the feelings of the parents of these unfortunate children whose education will be neglected. Why is it so easy to take action that harms the disadvantaged in the community? Is it because they are weak and incapable of looking after themselves? Is it because they cannot protest?
It is difficult to accept that the needs of these children can be met in ordinary schools. The parents tend not to be over-vociferous about the fact that their children are mentally backward or have other learning difficulties. If we adopt an integrated system of teaching, more teachers must be trained to give special tuition. There must be small classes so that individual attention can be given. If all the factors that surround the integrated system are taken into account, it is possible to prove that the cost will be greater.
I am informed by a reliable source that in the South Yorkshire area heads of ordinary schools, especially infant and junior, need help in that area but are not receiving it. Surprisingly, ESN schools have places available but the children are not allowed to go to that sort of school. Although the headmasters recommend that the children should attend those schools, the authority will not allow it. That is why, although Greenside school has 50 places, only 29 are filled.
Some psychologists say that there is no demand for the empty places. If that is true, the Barnsley area is not typical of the country as a whole. The places available are well below Warnock's recommendations. Evidence suggests that there are too many children with learning difficulties in ordinary schools. They are not able to obtain places in special schools and so are not receiving proper education. The ordinary schools are not geared to ensure that those children obtain the necessary tuition.
The headmaster of Greenside school applied for his school to be designated as a special school for children with speaking difficulties. His application was refused by the education officer for the Barnsley metropolitan borough council. I understand that had it been designated a special school it would not be easy for the council to close it. That was why the application was refused. A question was raised whether the staff had the necessary qualifications. That is why I find it difficult to understand why the application was refused. All teachers at that school hold, in addition to the usual teaching qualifications, a diploma for the education of children with learning dificulties.
There is evidence that when headmasters in the Barnsley metropolitan area recommend that a child should attend a special school they are told that no places are available. Greenside school has had success in teaching children whose needs would not be met in another school in the Barnsley district. If Greenside school is closed, those children will have to go to residential schools outside the authority at a cost of £6,000 per child per year. If only eight children who could have attended Greenside school are sent out of the authority area it will cost Barnsley

523
£48,000 a year. So where will the saving be gained by closing the school? It is estimated that that will save only £46,000 a year.
The infant and junior children who attend Greenside school from Bolton, Thurnscoe, Great Houghton, Darfield, Wombwell, Hoyland, Platts Common, Kendray and Grimethorpe will face a long journey at additional cost if they have to travel to other special schools. It will be especially arduous if Springwood is full and they have to travel to Whinnoor school, at Barugh Green. Infants and young juniors will have to travel from one end of the Barnsley metropolitan area to the other under the pretext of saving money.
Greenside school has a well-qualified staff. It is a special school where the headmaster and his deputy teach a full timetable every day. It is the only special school that returns at least one-third of its intake to the mainstream of education.
Greenside school has particular success in teaching maladjusted children, as well as other children with learning difficulties. It exists to provide an essential service to the most neglected and educationally disabled children in Barnsley and district. Yet the education office says that the school will close on 1 September 1981.
What can be done to see that the school is fully used? First, one could remove the special powers of psychologists to block the requests of heads of mainstream schools to have their children looked at by the panel with a view to assisting them with their special educational needs. Then, one could have Greenside school registered as a special school for children with learning difficulties. That would cut out the need for psychological tests and create a more flexible system whereby the special educational needs of all children are met in a more rational way. In the short term, that would save the authority money and prevent many children from being sent out of the borough to residential schools. It makes financial and educational sense.
The objections put forward by the education authority to the continuation of this school are not good enough. It is obvious tht some of the children, if they are not given special tuition, will become a liability to the nation. If they have to go into special homes the cost is bound to be much greater.
I have not the slightest doubt that it is the Government's financial policy of reducing public expenditure that has created the problems of Greenside School. I ask the Minister to take immediate action to ensure that the school is allowed to operate as a special school for children with learning difficulties. The question of integration or segregation depends on how the education authority plans either of the two schemes. Before the former can be put into operation, and if it is to be successful, an efficient scheme—which, most likely, will be more costly—will have to be planned well ahead. In an earlier debate we were told the differences between integration and segregation. There are arguments for both.
What benefits can be given to those unfortunate children to ensure that they get the best that our education system can give them, that the cost is not too heavy, and that the Government realise that these children are better off in society and make a greater contribution to society if they receive the kind of education that they should have?
I ask the Minister to conider this problem and to ensure, if possible, that the Greenside school at Wombwell is kept
524
open until a better system can be found whereby these unfortunate children get the kind of college of education that they deserve.
12.9 am
Mr. Allen McKay: I am grateful for this opportunity to reinforce my hon. Friend's argument I was chairman of a school that was similar to Greenside school—the remedial school at Market Street, Hoyland. It was closed at about the same time. It was decided to open it a short time ago to help children who could not read or write. Children were drawn from the whole locality of the Barnsley metropolitan borough council to attend this special school. It had a high rate of success. In a short time, children were able to take their place in normal schools.
The school is now to close. I am very disturbed, as is my hon. Friend, that two schools in the area that cater for this type of child are to close. If the children go to a normal school, two things will occur. First, they will not receive specialist teaching, to which they have been accustomed, and they will leave school unable to read or write. Second, they will form a disruptive element in class and thus interfere with the education of other children.
I join my hon. Friend in asking the Minister to make finance available to ensure that these schools remain open.
12.10 am
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): It is perhaps symbolic that the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) should raise this subject today in view of the Bill which was given a Third Reading earlier. The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue with me in two questions at Question Time. I am aware of his anxiety about the proposals that the Barnsley education authority has made for the Greenside special school. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I ignore the wider issues that he raised at the outset of his remarks. If he reads the report of the debate that took place earlier on the Education Bill, he will find that many of the issues were covered by both Labour and Conservative Members.
I shall deal first with the Barnsley education authority's intention to close the Greenside special school. As the law stands at present, the statutory procedures which apply to ordinary school closures do not apply to the closure of a special school. The local education authority is not obliged to publish notices giving details of its intentions, nor does it have to obtain the Secretary of State's approval. The Government realise that this situation is unsatisfactory, and the Bill which the House discussed earlier today aims to put this right. In future, when an authority wishes to close a special school it will have to notify the Secretary of State, the parents of all pupils attending the school, other authorities which have placed children at the school and any other interested parties. There will then be at least two months for those concerned to register objections, and any such objections which are not withdrawn as a result of negotiation with the authority will then be forwarded to the Secretary of State. Finally, whether or not there are any objections, the Secretary of State must consider the proposal and decide whether to approve it.
It is perhaps unfortunate timing that the proposal to close Greenside school has come up now before the new Bill becomes law, and doubly so in that parents and other local people with an interest in the school have, it seems,

525
been given little or no real opportunity to express their views. It is greatly to be regretted that the Barnsley education authority has chosen to handle the matter so abruptly and without any real attempt to conduct proper consultation. My Department has received no letters from hon. Members, from parents, from those in the immediate area or from those in neighbouring local education authorities who might be affected.
Mr. Edwin Wainwright rose
Mr. Macfarlane: I accept that they may have been sent, but I have not seen them. I am not aware of what action the local Member of Parliament—the hon. Gentleman—has taken.
It is important to consider the reasons underlying Barnsley's decision. I am bound to put the reasons before the House as they add an important balance to the argument. Greenside is a small school for children with moderate educational subnormality aged 5 to 11 years. The premises can accommodate up to 55 children, but numbers have been dropping steadily and at present there are only 29 pupils on roll. The hon. Gentleman said that the school has been run down as a matter of deliberation by the Barnsley education authority. I shall not be drawn into the reasons for that, save to say that in 1977 there were 49 pupils, in 1978 there were 46, in 1979 there were 45 and in 1981 there are 29.
The authority has two other ESN schools—Spring Wood and Whinmoor—which provide for pupils right up to school leaving age and beyond. Between them, these two schools can accommodate about 250 pupils and at present about 210 children attend them. This phenomenon of falling numbers is not, of course, peculiar to Barnsley. Indeed, it will be necessary on this account to take some 200,000 school places out of use in England generally by 1983–84. It is therefore right that authorities should look for a reduction in their own stock of places in good time.
Of the three schools, Greenside has the oldest premises and the fewest pupils. Moreover, when they reach 11 years the Greenside pupils must change their school. Some may transfer to mainstream education, but the majority will have to go to Spring Wood or Whinmoor. That being so, the question quite properly arises whether the children's own interests would be better served by attending one of these other schools from the outset. It seems to me that they will. That issue of continuity is important. However dedicated and caring the teachers, a small school cannot, by its very nature, offer the same range of facilities and learning experiences as can a larger one.
I am aware that many people believe that a break in education at the age of 11 or 12 is beneficial for handicapped pupils, while others prefer a change of school at 14 to encourage the development of courses and activities to prepare youngsters for independent living. Whatever the ideal may be, the situation in Barnsley requires Greenside children to transfer into a school where most of the other children entered as infants. However one looks at it, this can hardly be regarded as satisfactory.
Mr. Wainwright: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman. A petition which has been signed by 3,700 parents has gone to Barnsley metropolitan borough council instead of coming to me and to the Department.
Mr. Macfarlane: I am interested to hear that. It enables us to understand what is happening locally. When there is local anxiety, it is perhaps unique for any of my hon. Friends in the Department not to have had some direct communication from the hon. Member or from the local people.
As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McKay), there are practical implications of closing any school in terms of the length of journey to alternative schools for the children concerned. In this case I understand that although some of the Greenside children will have to travel up to two more miles to school, others will have a shorter journey. Clearly, these are factors of particular concern to parents and may also affect the frequency and ease with which they can visit the school themselves. However, I understand that well over half the parents with children at Greenside school have already accepted the authority's offer of alternative placements for their children.
Parents will also wish to ensure that any special help that their child may be receiving at Greenside school will continue to be available. I understand that a number of these children have speech difficulties which require the service of speech therapists. Barnsley's special schools, like those in many other areas, can always make good use of more speech therapists. Conversely, any reduction in this area would be a matter of concern. However, I am assured that the local area health authority does not intend to reduce the amount of time spent by speech therapists in its employment in Barnsley's schools whether or not Greenside school closes.
As regards special education facilities for children with speaking difficulties, the first point that I would make is to reiterate the substance of my reply to the hon. Member's question on 12 May, as reported in Hansard at column 604, that it is the duty of each local authority to ensure that the educational facilities available in its area are adequate to meet the needs of all the children in that area. It is not for the Government to tell authorities how to discharge that responsibility and, as I am sure the hon. Member well knows, the Secretary of State can intervene only if a local education authority can be shown to be acting unreasonably or in any way failing to discharge that duty.
My second point is that a child may experience speaking difficulties for a number of reasons. He may be unable to speak properly because of some inherent defect of mind or body which justifies his being ascertained as suffering from "speech defect" within the meaning of regulation 4 of the Handicapped Pupils and Special Schools Regulations 1959; or his difficulties may be the result of some other handicap, such as deafness, such that although his speech-making functions are not themselves impaired he has never learnt to use them properly. In either case, the child will receive appropriate special educational treatment, either in a special school or unit for children with speech defects or as an adjunct to that appropriate to his main handicap.
But many other children who do not suffer from any formally ascertained handicap also have speaking difficulties which may arise for any of a number of different reasons—linguistically inadequate home environment, too frequent changes of school in the early, formative years, ethnic background, emotional or behavioural difficulties or even inadequate early teaching, to name but a few. Such children will usually receive remedial education in their ordinary schools, including,

527
where necessary, support from speech therapists and other specialists but without ever needing to attend a special school or special language unit. Clearly, the borderline between the handicapped and non-handicapped in these areas is inevitably blurred. This was one of the reasons which led the Warnock committee to recommend the abolition of statutory categorisation and the extension of the concept of special education to cover children with special needs as distinct from ascertainable handicap. I emphasise that education authorities have always had a duty to provide for all children, whatever their needs.
The hon. Member referred to dyslexia. Not long ago, I replied to a debate on that subject introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar). That subject was gone into in some depth. I recommend that the hon. Member has a look at that if he feels that I am falling short in providing information on that subject tonight.
That duty of education authorities is enshrined in section 8 of the Education Act 1944 and the new Bill in no way alters this fundamental precept. Nor would I accept that education authorities in general have ever chosen to ignore that duty in respect of children with speaking dificulties. The methods adopted in meeting such children's needs naturally vary from place to place and from time to time—and no system is perfect—but each authority's performance is to be judged on its results and not whether it has or has not adopted a system which matches any preconceived "ideal" provision.
528
Having already mentioned Barnsley in connection with the Greenside closure, I can only add that I am not aware of any evidence that children with speaking difficulties in that area are not receiving the education that they need. I cannot believe, if that were so, that the local education authority would not act with all speed. I am certain that the hon. Member would ensure that his constituents' interests were looked after.
Mr. Wainwright: The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to speaking difficulties. Probably I am to blame for that. I told his office that I am concerned mainly about learning difficulties. I do not want the impression to be given that only speaking difficulties are concerned.
Mr. Macfarlane: I accept that. However, it is an important dimension to the debate. We cannot ignore it. It is important. The hon. Member alluded to the subject in previous discussions in the House.
We have received no complaint from the hon. Member. No doubt, the petition which has arrived at the Barnsley local education authority office will be forthcoming in the near future. No doubt, the hon. Member will discharge his duties admirably. If he has any specific cases in mind., I shall be happy to have them investigated.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-one minutes past Twelve o'clock.

TRADE
  Coffee Prices
  Coffee Prices
  Japanese Cars
  Japanese Cars
  Consumer Advice (Rural Scotland)
  Consumer Advice (Rural Scotland)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Contempt of Court Proceedings
  Contempt of Court Proceedings
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Photocopying Machines
  Photocopying Machines
DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  State Visits (Street Closures)
  State Visits (Street Closures)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Unemployment Costs
  Unemployment Costs
  £1 Coin
  £1 Coin
  European Community (Contributions)
  European Community (Contributions)
SCOTLAND
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Roads
  Roads
WALES
  Housing Starts
  Housing Starts
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Electric Heating Systems
  Electric Heating Systems
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Hearing-impaired Persons
  Hearing-impaired Persons
  National Insurance (Appeals)
  National Insurance (Appeals)
  Moss Side and Park Lane Hospitals Site
  Moss Side and Park Lane Hospitals Site
  Children (Injuries)
  Children (Injuries)
  Hospitals (Waiting Lists)
  Hospitals (Waiting Lists)
  Benefits (Costs)
  Benefits (Costs)
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
  Alcoholism
  Alcoholism
  Maternity Grant
  Maternity Grant
  Oxygen Cylinders
  Oxygen Cylinders
  Hostel Accommodation
  Hostel Accommodation
  Pensions (Five-year Rule)
  Pensions (Five-year Rule)
  Joint Project for Disabled People
  Joint Project for Disabled People
  European Community (Medical Treatment)
  European Community (Medical Treatment)
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
ENERGY
  Studies and Reports (Costs)
  Studies and Reports (Costs)
  Coal Liquefaction Plant (Point of Ayr)
  Coal Liquefaction Plant (Point of Ayr)
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Electricity Charges
  Electricity Charges
  Energy Costs
  Energy Costs
  Oil Imports
  Oil Imports
  Nuclear Power (Research and Development)
  Nuclear Power (Research and Development)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Traffic Information Service
  Traffic Information Service
  Prisoners (Self-Starvation)
  Prisoners (Self-Starvation)
  Prisons (Building and Repair)
  Prisons (Building and Repair)
  Photofit Pictures
  Photofit Pictures
  Local Radio Stations (Guernsey and Jersey)
  Local Radio Stations (Guernsey and Jersey)
  Detention Centres
  Detention Centres
PRIME MINISTER
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Force Survey
  Labour Force Survey
  Temporary Short-Time Working Compensation Scheme
  Temporary Short-Time Working Compensation Scheme
  Industrial Training Boards
  Industrial Training Boards
  Industrial Training Levies (Exemptions)
  Industrial Training Levies (Exemptions)
  North-West (Unemployment)
  North-West (Unemployment)
  Employment Services (European Community Funding)
  Employment Services (European Community Funding)
  Engineering Apprenticeships
  Engineering Apprenticeships
  Unemployment (Manpower and Financial Savings)
  Unemployment (Manpower and Financial Savings)
  Disabled Persons (Early Retirement)
  Disabled Persons (Early Retirement)
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Merseyside and Liverpool
  Merseyside and Liverpool
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Liverpool Passport Office
  Liverpool Passport Office
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  French Poultry Industry
  French Poultry Industry
INDUSTRY
  European Community (Electronics Industries)
  European Community (Electronics Industries)
  Office Systems
  Office Systems
  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  International Computers Ltd.
  International Computers Ltd.
TRANSPORT
  Tyre Sealants
  Tyre Sealants
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
  Aire Valley Motorway
  Aire Valley Motorway
  Road Tunnels (Tolls)
  Road Tunnels (Tolls)
  Vehicle Excise Duty (Wales)
  Vehicle Excise Duty (Wales)
  Transport and Road Research Laboratory
  Transport and Road Research Laboratory
DEFENCE
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Replacement Radar)
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Replacement Radar)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Vospers Shipyard (Southampton)
  Vospers Shipyard (Southampton)
  Mr. Kenneth Maginnis (Resignation)
  Mr. Kenneth Maginnis (Resignation)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Education Service (Administration)
  Education Service (Administration)
  Teachers
  Teachers
  University Grants
  University Grants
  Students' Unions
  Students' Unions
  Education Expenditure
  Education Expenditure
  National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults (Exhibition)
  National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults (Exhibition)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Proscribed Organisations (Criteria)
  Proscribed Organisations (Criteria)
  Special Development Areas (Unemployment)
  Special Development Areas (Unemployment)
  Unemployed Persons (Belfast)
  Unemployed Persons (Belfast)
  Electricity and Gas Disconnections
  Electricity and Gas Disconnections
  Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve
  Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve
ENVIRONMENT
  New Building and Improvement
  New Building and Improvement
  Rating Review
  Rating Review
  Council Houses (Condensation and Damp)
  Council Houses (Condensation and Damp)
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Rates
  Rates
  Urban Aid Programme
  Urban Aid Programme
  Surplus Land (Sales)
  Surplus Land (Sales)
  Rate Support Grant (London)
  Rate Support Grant (London)
  Water Rates (Rebate)
  Water Rates (Rebate)
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Local Authority Housing Starts
  Local Authority Housing Starts
  Rate support Grant (New Towns)
  Rate support Grant (New Towns)
  Home Insulation
  Home Insulation
  Housing (London)
  Housing (London)
  Glasshouses
  Glasshouses
  Partnership Schemes
  Partnership Schemes
  Amusement Centres
  Amusement Centres
  Council House Rents
  Council House Rents
  Merseyside Urban Development Corporation
  Merseyside Urban Development Corporation
  Planning Applications and Appeals
  Planning Applications and Appeals
  Rate Support Grant (Manchester)
  Rate Support Grant (Manchester)
  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act
  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act
  Ordnance Survey
  Ordnance Survey
  Local Authority Houses (Solid Fuel Heating)
  Local Authority Houses (Solid Fuel Heating)
  Enterprise Agency (Brent)
  Enterprise Agency (Brent)
  British Consulate (Thailand)
  British Consulate (Thailand)
  Planning Consent (Green Belt)
  Planning Consent (Green Belt)
  Urban Development Corporations (Land Purchase)
  Urban Development Corporations (Land Purchase)
  Shorthold Tenure (Greater London)
  Shorthold Tenure (Greater London)
  Commercial Rates
  Commercial Rates
  Greater London Council (Functions)
  Greater London Council (Functions)
  Palace of Westminster
  Palace of Westminster
  Steamer Point, Dorset
  Steamer Point, Dorset
  Grace and Favour Homes
  Grace and Favour Homes
  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee
  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee

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

Lord Stodart of Leaston
The Right Honourable James Anthony Stodart, having been created Baron Stodart of Leaston, of Humbie in the District of East Lothian, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Kinross and the Lord Glenkinglas.

Angola: British Mercenaries
2.48 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make representation to the Government of Angola for the release of the young British mercenaries who have now been in prison for four years.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, any decision on the cases of the seven former mercenaries is, of course, a matter for the Angolan Government, but we have taken steps to ensure that the Angolan Government is fully aware of our concern for these men, to whom our Embassy now has regular consular access. We shall continue to pay close attention to their cases.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It is true that our information is that the Embassy now have close contact with these men and that their treatment is better. Would the Minister not agree, in view of the fact that other mercenaries of other countries have been released by negotiation, and that these men have now been in prison for five years and not four years, that Her Majesty's Government might use their improved relations with many African states to exact further pressure to try to get these young men released who, certainly, have now been sufficiently punished? One can only despise the people who recruited them but they themselves surely do not deserve further punishment.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this is something which, in the first instance, is a matter for the men themselves and their relatives. We have intense consular activity in that area. Secondly, it is a particularly touchy part of the world, as the noble Lord and the House will appreciate; and it is unlikely that the Angolans will see things in quite the light that the noble Lord would hope until there is an improvement in that part of Southern Africa.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, if I may put a further supplementary question, is it not time to open these negotiations in view of the fact that earlier mercenaries have been released and in view of the fact of the excellent relations that the noble Lord the Leader of this House has with neighbouring states, and that perhaps a little more pressure could be exerted than is being exerted at the moment?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, representations have in the past been made and when there is the slightest hope of the further possibility of successful representations, this will be done.
The Earl of Gosford: My Lords, could the Minister say what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to stop the recruitment of mercenaries? I believe this was a point raised by the Angolan Government three or four years ago.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, all Members of the Government, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, my right honourable and noble friend the Foreign Secretary, have always condemned mercenaries. We do this without hesitation and will continue to do so.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord says that representations have been made. Can he say to what extent those representations have been supported by our fellow members of the European Community?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, I have no background information on that point.
Lord Sinclair: My Lords, can the noble Lord say anything about the conditions in which the men have been kept, and whether any are seriously ill or have died?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, currently all the men are reported to be in reasonable health. They are allowed regular exercise and receive medical treatment when necessary. Recently, I understand, one of them has undergone surgery, but there has been no problem about this and all are in excellent health.
Lord Milford: My Lords, following the supplementary question put by my noble friend on the stopping of recruitment of mercenaries, could not the Governments of the European Community get together and make it illegal for any mercenaries to go anywhere?—so to stop these thugs who have no ideology and who only want to kill people and make money. Can they not be stopped?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we are now moving into a difficult area. We should all like to stop it, but it is not quite so easy as one would think. We are continually having discussions between ourselves, member states and all other Governments, and will obviously do our best to bring these to a conclusion, but I cannot hold out any hope at the moment.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend's Government join their condemnation of the

217
recruitment of volunteers to a denunciation of the actions of Communist Governments such as Cuba intervening in Africa?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is another question.
Lord Byers: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm to the House that it is illegal to recruit mercenaries in this country? It must be.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I am unsure on that point, I will certainly write to the noble Lord.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister not forget, in the middle of the subsequent arguments about my Question, that these unfortunate men are unlikely ever to be recruited again and they have been in prison now for five years?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, whether they are going to be recruited surely depends on whether they are going to be released.

United Reformed Church Bill [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Race and Sex Discrimination
2.55 p.m.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear rose to call attention to the need for effective action to combat the continuing prevalence in the United Kingdom of racial disadvantage, and discrimination on grounds of race and sex: and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: I should like first, my Lords, to say how very glad I am that the subject of equal opportunities has—perhaps suitably—stimulated three "maidens". I look forward to their support. Since it is not customary to be controversial in a maiden speech, I am assuming that support will be forthcoming. It is now five and a half years since the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act came into force. It is nearly five years since the Race Relations Act was passed. So it seems an appropriate time to take stock of the progress made, of whether the subject is still important and, if it is, of what further action should now be taken.
I am glad to say that there is progress to report. If one listened to some sections of the press only, one would believe that the legislation had been a total failure. That in fact is not the case. In particular, in so far as equal opportunities for women are concerned, there has been marked progress in the professions. In the accountancy profession—a very important area for women to enter, for a variety of reasons—in 1971 only 1·6 per cent. of the Institute of Chartered Accountants was made up of women. Last year, no less than 25 per cent. of new recruits entering into that profession were women.
Similar spectacular progress has been made by the entry of young women into the law. No fewer than 40 per cent. of new entrants into the solicitors' profession last year were women. In 1971 women in the
218
Law Society numbered only 3·2 per cent. Progress has also been made in the medical profession and in dentistry—two areas in which in any case women had fared better even before the passing of the legislation, and in which their progress had been marked.
I wish, however, that I could say the same for industry and commerce. So far as general management is concerned, there has been a decline, not an improvement. In 1968 no fewer than 9 per cent. of those classified as general managers were women. The figure has fallen to a little more than only 7 per cent. For skilled manual workers there is also a decline, from over 13 per cent. to only 9 per cent. today.
As for progress in relation to ethnic minorities, it is far more difficult to give any report to your Lordships' House because of the determination on the part of so many authorities and employers not to collect information which can indicate whether we are making any progress. In the lamentable absence of such statistical information, one can only use the evidence of one's eyes. Where in the upper reaches of private enterprise, in the upper reaches of the nationalised industries, in the upper reaches of commerce and the great financial houses or at the Box yonder, do we see evidence of advance by the ethnic minorities in the responsible positions in this country? It is very hard to come by information either from figures or from what we are able to see around us.
My Lords, does it matter? Were we right to be so concerned when we passed those Acts five years ago? I believe it still matters, not less but more than when we passed that legislation. Others speaking in today's debate will speak with more authority than I on the ethical case for equal opportunities. As I see it, it stands where it always stood: inviolable. But I want to draw attention to two other practical issues which make the question of equal opportunities of very great importance. So far as we can make out, both women and ethnic minorities occupy a disproportionate number of the very skilled jobs in this country, in both clerical and manufacturing work.
One of the few things that we know with certainty about the future is that the future employment prospects of the unskilled are going to be very bleak indeed. That is generally agreed not only in this country but throughout the industrialised world. People who have no training have a very poor prospect of employment in the years ahead, and women overwhelmingly are among the unskilled. We still have 40 per cent. of our girl school-leavers going into clerical work of some kind or another. Where will those women be when the "chips" have begun to take over? I do not take an extremist or an alarmist view, nor do I believe that it is going to happen very speedily; but it is common sense and the forecast of the most reasonable forecasters that it is likely to take place over the next decade or so.
We need to get far more women trained into jobs where they have not so far been employed, because undoubtedly job segregation—women's jobs for women and men's jobs for men, which we talked about so much at the time the Sex Discrimination Act was going through—still holds over a wide field of employment in this country. If the situation stays like that we shall have a considerable number of women looking for jobs while jobs of a skilled and technical kind will be

219
calling out for people, and we shall not be able to match up the women with the jobs because they will have been confined to the traditional but dwindling area of "women's work".
So it is also with the ethnic minorities: they too are disproportionately employed in the lower grades of employment. That we know, despite the inadequacy of the statistics; but there is a bigger point here. I do not pretend—much as I care about the development of equal opportunities for women—that the failure to move more quickly in this direction is fraught with acute social danger. But I do believe, in relation to ethnic minorities, that if we delay much longer and if we go on ignoring the extent to which unemployment among black school-leavers is higher than it is among white school-leavers, there are areas in our country where there are concentrations of ethnic minorities in which social unrest may become more than just a glib term and in which we are threatened with really serious social upheaval if we do not take action soon, otherwise it will be too late, So I argue that it is necessary to take further action to see that we have a more effective implementation of the legislation to which we put our name in this House five years ago.
What sort of action should we be taking? Some would ask for far more drastic legislation. I do not myself believe that is the way ahead. I do not believe it is practicable or that there is the faintest chance, whether one wanted it or not, that this Government would bring in more drastic legislation—nor, for that matter, would any Government that we are likely to have in the foreseeable future. Nor do I believe it would be particularly successful. We need to remind ourselves that with all the strength of the American legislation (and it is far stronger than is ours in this country) so far as equal pay is concerned—and why should we not say this?—we in this country have made much better progress on bringing women's earnings nearer to men's earnings on an hourly basis than is the case in the United States. The most recent report shows that women here are still earning only about three-quarters of the average earnings of men, but in the United States, with all their powerful legislation, they have only moved as regards average hourly earnings for women from 57 per cent. to 59 per cent. of male hourly earnings. So much for the value of very strong legislation! I am not, of course, denying that there are areas in America in which far greater progress has been made than has been made in this country.
I understand that there are proposals abroad for modifications and amendments of the legislation we have got. I do not propose to go into that today. It has my support, but it is a matter not of drastic change but of sensible modification based on the experience we have had and also on the very valuable decisions which have been coming from the European Court. I should like to congratulate the Equal Opportunities Commission on its initiative in using the European Court to establish rights in the way that it has done. The only point I would make in passing is that it is unwise of this country, both the Government and employers, on the assumption—which is very much the assumption on these Benches—that we continue to be good members of the European Community,
220
to overlook the fact that the European Community's interpretation of "equal pay" is "equal pay for work of equal value", and not the interpretation that we have in this country. If that change is to be made it has very drastic repercussions and we would be well advised to be examining now what the full implications of a change from our existing definition from "equal work" to "work of equal value" would in fact mean, rather than take the line which has been the line up to the present, that that is not a practical way of approaching the whole issue.
No, I would not go for dramatic changes in the legislation. I would, however, ask for a much more vigorous implementation of the legislation we have got. It is so often said that Christianity has not failed: it has never been tried. It is equally true that our equal opportunities legislation has not failed: it has never effectively been tried. We have an Equal Opportunities Commission and a Commission for Racial Equality. They are operating under extremely difficult conditions, but it is fair to ask how many investigation procedures allowed under our legislation as part of the enforcement procedure have been undertaken, and how many non-discrimination notices have been served as a result of those investigations. If the number is very small, and I believe it to be so, is it surprising that the great mass of employers up and down the country are saying, in effect, "Among all the many problems we have to face this is not really one of the very urgent ones. Nobody is biting us very hard on the subject of equal opportunities. We have other troubles: let us wait and hope that it will all go away." And that of course, my Lords, is what is going on.
Then within our legislation there is the provision for reverse discrimination, positive discrimination in the area of training where a particular group is very substantially under-represented in any particular occupation. This, given the under-representation in training in the past of so many women and so many ethnic minorities, is potentially a very powerful instrument indeed. But what use has been made of it? To their credit, the Engineering Training Board has used it extremely effectively in training for women technicians, to the great benefit not only of the women—and this is a point one cannot stress too much—but also of industry, which is short of technicians. I may say that they had considerable difficulty in getting it under way. They went to the schools and careers officers, and got no response. It was only when the very enterprising director of the Engineering Training Board got himself on the local radio, and thus inside the homes of women and their parents, that he was flooded with very good applications. These courses have been a great success and they are continuing.
Similarly, Hatfield Polytechnic has put on a two-year training course for women accountants. I may say that not only did they have the enterprise to do that but they also had the enterprise to get some of the money that was needed out of the EEC. If Hatfield can do this, why cannot other places do it? There may be many other such schemes that I have not heard about, but I have looked and looked for them in vain.
Then again there are the indirect discrimination clauses in both Acts. We had the famous Linda Price case in the Civil Service. How many employers have

221
really combed through their jobs to see whether in fact they are guilty of indirect discrimination?—very, very few. Very little use has been made of that extremely powerful instrument for bringing about equal opportunity. So let us use the legislation that we have.
But, perhaps, most important of all, what can Government do to see that the legislation we have is put into force? It is in the power of Government to make it a condition of giving Government contracts that there should, at least, be signs of activity in the development of the implementation of an equal opportunity policy. I deliberately say "development of the implementation". Equal opportunity policies, unless they are followed by action, by plans, by some kind of target as to what is hoped to be achieved—I am not talking about quotas or anything of that kind—are little more than humbug.
If Government could create some link between the giving of Government contracts, as they did years ago—and still do with fair wage regulations—that would be a great stimulus. But how can Government do this, unless Government themselves are seen to be a good equal opportunities employer? What can you expect the private sector to say if Government, with a record that does not stand up very well to investigation, turn round to employers and say "We will not put our orders with you, unless you show that you are a good equal opportunities employer?"
What is the record of Government as regards equal opportunities? So far as women are concerned, there was a very encouraging beginning, before the legislation came into force, in the Kemp-White recommendations, but where have we got to since then? What changes have really come about, since the legislation was passed, in Government as a direct employer in the Civil Service? Then, of course, Government have influence, also, in the nationalised industries and in local authorities.
If we look at 1968 and 1980, and see the highest grades in the Civil Service, we find no change so far as Permanent Secretaries are concerned. The position of women is 0 per cent. in both years. So far as Deputy Secretaries are concerned, there is also no change. The figure remains at 2·5 per cent. in both years. For Under-Secretaries there has been an increase from 2·4 per cent. in 1968 to 4·4 per cent. in 1980—big deal! For Assistant Secretaries the figure has fallen from 6·1 per cent. to 5·7 per cent. Equal opportunities!
How about the upward flow? There we do not have the same figures, but why are women not reaching the Assistant Secretary grade? It may be said that they do not stay, that they have family commitments or that they cannot make the grade. But a good equal opportunities employer is trying to find ways to ease the problem of the able woman—indeed, of any woman—who is attempting to combine the responsibilities of family with the responsibilities of doing a job. That is why the Kemp-White Report suggested that there should be an experimental day nursery—not a very novel or very extravagent suggestion. There was one experimental day nursery opened in Wales, but it has been shut and nothing has taken its place.
What are the Government doing to assist the able women that they recruit into the Civil Service to be able to maintain their careers? What have Government
222
done, as an employer, in relation to the special training schemes to which I referred earlier, to bring women who have not had the same training as men, or to bring blacks who have not had the same training, up to the level of the jobs which they have to offer? Similarly, can the Government tell us what has been done since the Linda Price case, which the Civil Service Department fought, to make sure that nowhere else inside the Civil Service is indirect discrimination being practised?
So far as ethnic minorities are concerned, in 1973 the Civil Service Department introduced an equal opportunities policy for race. What has happened since then? In November 1978, the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations—and I declare an interest because I am chairman of that institute—at the request of the Civil Service, produced a report on the possibility of effective monitoring for equal opportunities for ethnic minorities inside the Civil Service. That report, which came out in 1978, did not say—it was not asked to say—whether discrimination was going on. But it did say on a number of occasions that there were hazards to fairness; that there was evidence that you could not be sure. In fact, it was more than that you could not be sure. There was evidence which pointed in the direction of a lack of fairness, although they did not say that they had proved that it amounted to discrimination, for, indeed, it was a careful report.
But what has happened to that report? That was 2½ years ago. The Government as an employer, the Civil Service Department, were told that in relation to their own employees there were "hazards to fairness" in an area of the greatest importance to the reputation of the Government—in the employment of ethnic minorities. To the best of my knowledge, there has been a long wrangle ever since then about the question of monitoring, and nothing has been done. And, alas!, only very recently, it was stated that this Government do not intend to introduce monitoring.
An equal opportunity policy without monitoring is humbug. Unless you are going to monitor in some shape or form, how do you know what is happening to your policy? You would not introduce any other policy in any other sphere, without the accompanying monitoring. The Government have a monetarist policy. They monitor it—presumably—or, at least, they try to. But in relation to their equal opportunities policy, they openly say that they do not intend to monitor, although, at last, the trade unions are calling out for it. Mr. Campbell Christie, a leader of one of the main trade unions concerned, is urging the Government to monitor.
What reply do we get? We are told that it is too expensive. May I just say this: All right, it may cost a good deal of money. My argument is that it will cost a great deal of money, sooner or later, if you do not do it. But you do not have to try to do the whole Civil Service all at once. In my view, it would be very foolish to attempt to monitor something as large and cumbersome as the whole Civil Service all at once. But what is to stop the Government from making a start on a narrow front?
That kind of thing has been done before. They have tried in one part of the Civil Service or another, perhaps chosen for one particularly important reason. Contact with the public might be one. Begin monitoring.

223
Have a quite simple, unambitious plan. Find out what is happening. Until you monitor, you will not know what is happening. You are unable to answer the charge of "hazards to fairness", which was made two years ago. I beg the Government to do something about this, because Government influence would be stronger than anything else in affecting the private sector.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will be replying to this debate, but I should like to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Soames, who is the Minister responsible for the Civil Service. The noble Lord, Lord Soames, has grasped the nettle of multi-racialism in far more difficult circumstances and with great success. After what he did in Rhodesia, he can surely handle the far less stinging nettle in Whitehall. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, first may I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for giving the House today the opportunity to debate these two very important subjects. I look forward very much to hearing the maiden speeches of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney. I hope that the House and the Minister will forgive me if have to leave before the end of the debate. I took on this duty at the last moment and I have an engagement to fulfil which I cannot get out of.
I think we are all agreed that there is enough to be said about these subjects to make in fact two debates. I also think—I do not know whether this is in the mind of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—that it is quite difficult for a major debate on sex discrimination to be got off the ground by any one party on its own. There is the advantage that sometimes the discrimination is similar in the two areas which we are debating today, though at other times it is quite different. Women's subjects tend to be left to women, though I am glad that a great many men will be speaking in today's debate.
It is interesting that we should be discussing this subject in your Lordships' House. There are nearly four times as many women Peers as there are women Members of Parliament, and there is no Member of Parliament who is black, whereas I am glad to see that my noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead will be speaking in our debate.
As we all know, when a man becomes a Peer his wife takes his title. I have been asked many times since I have been in your Lordships' House whether or not I think it unfair that my husband and the husbands of other noble Baronesses do not also have a title. My answer has always been that they have got it wrong: that in fact women are still the titular appendages of men. A man does not want to feel that he belongs to a woman, even by title. What my husband enjoys most is not being able to pay for drinks at the bar, which is an entirely different form of inequality!
It is interesting to note that today we are talking of women who represent a majority of the population—52 per cent.—and of a minority ethnic group who represent something like 3.6 per cent. of the population.
224
We should remember what the United Nations report of 1980 said about women:
"Women constitute one-half of the world's population, perform nearly two-thirds of work hours, receive one-tenth of the world's income and own less than 100 per cent. of the world's property".
I agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, when she spoke of the marked progress women have made in the professions. Therefore, one must not pretend that a great deal has not been done. But in this connection we are talking more about articulate and probably more confident women than about the mass of women in this country. Although we appreciate what has been done in the past, it is true that whether we are talking about women or about ethnic minorities, things are getting worse, due to the economic and political situation. Both groups are heavily disadvantaged. The PEP report, The Facts of Racial Disadvantage, 1976 documents the race side of this problem extremely well.
There is no time to go into the details but I should like to deal with one or two areas which affect both women and blacks. The Department of Employment survey published in April 1980 showed that the black unemployment increase over the previous year was four times the rate of unemployment generally. The Commission for Racial Equality survey of young black applicants in Nottingham applying in the same year for white collar jobs showed that discrimination had increased by one-third since the PEP report of 1976.
Women form 40 per cent. of the workforce in this country. In the last two years the number of women registered as unemployed has nearly doubled; from 377,000 to 705,500. It could be argued that male unemployment has also doubled. Unemployment generally in this country is scandalously high. However, when we are talking about women we have to realise that these figures are an underestimate. Large numbers of women are not registered as unemployed. Therefore they do not show up in the official figures. Many of them are part-time workers. They do not show up in the figures, either. Promotion and job opportunities for women, a point which was dealt with so splendidly by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is a problem which I hope everyone now recognises.
So far as the black community is concerned, again their promotion and job opportunities are extremely poor. Both sections of the community are poor compared with white men. Women earn only 74 per cent. of the average man's wage. That percentage has risen in recent years from 60 per cent. Nevertheless, when we are talking about equality in terms not only of opportunity but of equal pay, which is the linchpin of my party's policy, this percentage is nothing like good enough. The tendency on the part of many people is still to think of women's wages as pin money. It has to be recognised very much more widely than it is now that without the woman's contribution to the family income, four times as many families would be living below the supplementary benefit level. Therefore, the contribution of many women to domestic finances is absolutely essential. It is a vicious circle. Since there are fewer opportunities, the jobs which the majority of women are able to take are usually at a low level, which means that they are also much lower paid.
If we turn to education, the Select Committee on Race and Immigration called in 1977 for an urgent,

225
high level and independent inquiry into the underachievement of West Indian children in schools and the remedial action required. The Rampton Committee was set up. Its recent interim report showed that the achievement of West Indian children was six times worse than that of Asian or white children at both O and A levels. It showed also that the support network which is needed for these children is not available and that the image which they have of themselves is very poor.
If I may turn to the education of girls, it is terrible that after all these years the curriculum is still largely geared to traditional roles. It still perpetuates the educational gap between boys and girls and it runs against the social and economic tide. For example, there are practically no apprenticeships for women. Only hairdressing takes in a steady number. In too many professions and occupations women still have to enter at the secretarial or clerical level, which men do not have to do. This diminishes their prospects in later life. I should like to join the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in asking the Government what they are doing about this. We have a woman Prime Minister. There is also a woman who sits in this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who is a Minister in the Department of Education. Much of this is simply a matter of education.
I should now like to say a few words about housing because housing problems apply strongly in the case of the black population. In 1978 a general housing survey showed that only 22 per cent. of black people were housed by local authorities compared with 34 per cent. of white people; 14 per cent. of black people were forced into the private rented sector compared to 2 per cent. of white people. This means that many black people are living in low-grade accommodation, as we well know from the debate we had on housing. The Government cannot afford to cut housing in the public sector because more rented housing is needed if we are to be effective in helping the black population of this country.
I believe we are all aware that the number of single parent families has increased enormously. One in eight of all families in Great Britain today are single parent families, and among West Indians there is a disproportionate number of unsupported mothers. If one is both black and unsupported then one is under twice as much pressure from society and needs twice as much social back-up. Again, it seems to me that the Government cannot afford to cut social services when they are so badly needed. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, spoke in some detail about the responsibilities of central Government, and I agree with every word she said.
Soon after entering your Lordships' House I participated in the debate on the Fulton Report on the reorganisation of the Civil Service. I made the point then that I looked forward to seeing a new set-up in which a great many more opportunities would be given to women. As we have seen, it has not yet worked out that way. In fact, in many areas an atmosphere still prevails in which women and girls are made to feel that they are something extraordinary or not quite right for the job. When I was a Minister in the Department of the Environment I had at one time a highly intelligent and attractive girl as my private
226
secretary. A number of the men who came into the office—not just men in the Civil Service and other Ministers but men from outside as well—would say to her, "What is a pretty girl like you doing in a tough job like this?" It is this sort of attitude that women are having to fight all the time.
Far be it from me to say that any Government have reached anything close to perfection in their dealings either with women or with the black community, but the last Labour Government did introduce the Equal Pay Act, legislation against sex discrimination, and also employment protection legislation. With all their imperfections, these have formed a good framework on which to build. But the framework now needs strengthening and I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Lockwood, the chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, who has done so much to put matters on the right path, will be speaking later in the debate. I hope that my noble friend will explain some of the proposals which she feels should be introduced in order to strengthen present legislation.
It should not be forgotten that the question of equal opportunity applies to men just as much as to women. We should not imagine that this is just a women's problem; it is largely a woman's problem, but the Equal Opportunities Commission have had cases brought before them by men and there are probably many more such cases which have not been brought to the commission's attention because the men concerned are too shy to do so. In respect of employment, the Employment Act 1980, which was brought in by the present Government, has attacked women's rights to paid maternity leave and has reduced the protection from dismissal due to pregnancy. Other areas which were left out altogether from the original legislation, and which are still not covered, include tax, the difference between a single and a married woman's supplementary benefit—because a woman does not receive supplementary benefit in her own right if she is married—and loss of supplementary benefit by a single woman if she co-habits. Certainly I have never heard of a case in which a man lost his supplementary benefit or any other benefit because he co-habited.
The cuts in social services due to the present economic situation mean a double blow, particularly for women. They mean that women not only lose their jobs but also have to bridge the gaps in certain instances, such as school meals, which they now have to provide at home in those areas where schools have stopped providing meals altogether. Another is nursery schools. The situation in respect of the lack of nursery schools is appalling. We have raised this matter repeatedly, and I seem to have been discussing this subject all my adult life. If men had to go out to work and care for their children as well, there would be no lack of provision for nursery schools! The noble Baroness referred to the Tavistock Report and to the wrangling which is going on. As I understand it, the Government announced in February that they were not going ahead with the monitoring. I agree with the noble Baroness and shall not go over the same ground again. I shall only say that the Government must take the lead in these matters and implement their own legislation, and must also set the tone which can be followed by others. This applies across the

227
board. It applies in many cases in respect of women and also of the black community. The Tavistock Report, of course, dealt with the subject of the employment of black men and women in the Civil Service.
We see the gaps in central Government but we also see them in local government. Section 11 of the 1966 Local Government Act makes provision for grants to be given by central Government, but 25 per cent. of the figure has to be contributed by local government if a grant is to be taken up. These grants were meant for new immigrants to this country. A number of points have arisen from this. Firstly, the take-up has been very sporadic because local authorities have not been prepared to pay 25 per cent. towards the cost of the grant. Secondly, it is now quite clear that these grants should apply not only to new immigrants but also to people born in this country. The question here is not one of newness or of a new generation, but of colour. People who have been born here—and whose parents may have been born here—are now finding that because of awful colour prejudice they are considered as though they have just arrived on a banana boat. The fact that they are being treated in that way is causing much of the resentment that we see today.
Even if I am not here to hear him, I am sure the noble Lord the Minister will say that at the present time the finance is not available to do all the things I have mentioned. It is not just a question of finance, however; it is a question of political will. Even when resources were available, the Government did not take the opportunity to apply resources in the ways I have suggested. There was no real commitment. Probably the most important motivation behind all that is going on—and not going on—is based on attitudes and prejudice. It is a question of how one continues to try to change attitudes and prejudice in this country. The noble Baroness has said what she believes the Government should do and I agree with what she has said. However, I do not believe that we want a large amount of legislation but, rather, some legislation to amend the Acts we already have, in order to give them more teeth. Increasingly, black people—particularly young black people—are beginning to feel that they do not belong and that their only outlet is direct action in the form of marches and demonstrations, which only cause more violence.
About two weeks ago New Society published a précis of a report sent to the Home Office on two groups of young unemployed, one white and one black, and the young black unemployed showed an enormous resentment and hostility towards the police which was not shown by the white group. Obviously we are awaiting the result of the inquiry at Brixton, but this seems to be something that is absolutely essential to good relations in our community. We shall have to take action on the curriculum for boys and girls and I think we should also remember that, although the Government must take action, a great deal happens in the home and in the schools and many of the young women who belong to some of the women's liberation groups —and also their husbands—are really insistent that women should be given a proper choice. That does not mean that every woman should be made to feel that although she does not need to go out to work
228
she should do so and she is not fulfilling herself if she does not, but that she should have a proper choice and that she should also have the proper training and facilities to enable her to carry out that choice. It also means a different approach to the roles of men and women, and I think that that is changing among younger couples, where they take turns at baby-sitting and both work together in the domestic area.
This whole area, in which we are talking about discrimination against women and even more so, because it is even more socially dangerous at the moment, discrimination against blacks in our community, must have the highest priority, even if it means that resources have to be spent on it, whether it be money, manpower, more research monitoring of the schemes that have been started. I am not talking about some luxurious frill on the social fabric; I am talking about the social fabric itself. If we let that tear more than it is already tearing, we shall have an explosive and even worse situation in this country.
3.43 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, I am deeply conscious of the privilege of addressing your Lordships' House for the first time and also of the difficulty of making a non-controversial contribution to a debate on an inevitably controversial subject—a prospect which some of my friends have regarded with a combination of incredulity and merriment. I deliberately do not want to attempt to speak on the subject of discrimination on grounds of sex. I do not think that a representative of the Church of England would find that very easy just at the moment. I agree that the Church has its difficulties. I would not want to hide behind the exemptions granted in the 1975 Act to the Churches; I can only assure the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who introduced this debate and who was generous enough not to mention this particular subject, that we are persevering—some of us. I should also like to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that bishops' wives suffer from the same disability as do the husbands of noble Baronesses.
In this field of discrimination, whether sexual or racial, it is, as the noble Baroness has just reminded us, a question of changing attitudes and it is to that that I want to devote a brief consideration now. All sorts of good excuses can be adduced for attitudes—biological, economic, cultural and even theological reasons. Perhaps I may give some examples. I happen to be the representative of the archbishops with that small body of clergy and a few laity who are working as community relations chaplains or officers for the Churches in different parts of the country. We were told recently by an interviewer from an employment agency that an Asian woman who had been in this country for a good few years and was a GPO-trained telephonist—which, as the interviewer remarked, is rather like having Pitman's shorthand for a secretary—working in the GPO in North London, moved south of the river and wanted to get a job near her home. She came into the agency and the interviewer said she was a really lovely lady, a smashing telephonist, she had a lot of experience and was really well spoken. She would have fitted the bill for this particular job, for which they asked for a GPO-trained telephonist. She had an Indian-sounding name. The firm was

229
keen to have her when it heard of her qualifications but when it asked the lady's name, immediately the response was, "Is she an Indian?" The interviewer said, "Yes. She is a very attractive lady and very nice". The voice at the other end said, "No, we cannot have them. It is a very small switchboard and the others would not put up with it". The woman was sitting next to the interviewer; she heard the word "Yes", to the question as to whether she was an Indian, and she knew why she did not get the job. She was upset and she had a little cry, and the interviewer said, "She went and I never saw her again".
That is an example of what could, I suppose, be a genuine difficulty, or it could equally well be an excuse. The law can, and should, deal with that kind of injustice but of course it does not of itself change the attitudes. It is easy to persuade oneself that these attitudes are not present. Recently I was talking to one of my own clergy, telling him that I had to take part in this debate, and he said to me, "But surely there are not really many attitudes of racial discrimination about nowadays, are there?" I told him of an example which had happened in my own experience. An ordinand from my own diocese, a man who had served in a commercial firm for some 15 years and who had decided to be ordained, wanted to sell his house. He put it up for sale and because it is not so easy to sell houses in that particular part of the Black Country at the moment, he had some difficulty. Eventually he found a buyer. The buyer was an Indian accountant, well qualified and personable. The man described to me the incredible vindictiveness of his neighbours, who persecuted him in every way that they could for even thinking of selling his house to an Indian. I told the priest, "That was in your own parish".
A few years ago in my own diocesan synod we had a debate on this subject. One of our representatives from what we tend, I am afraid perhaps unkindly, to call the "white highlands" of Shropshire, went home and said to his son, "I don't know what we were spending all that time for, discussing racial attitudes. I don't think we are at all prejudiced or have these attitudes". His teenage son laughed at him and said "Father, you don't realise". The father wrote to me and said, "You know, my son really taught me to look at myself. I had not realised".
A few weeks ago I was slightly involved with the so-called People's March for Jobs, which was in my diocese for a whole week. The thing which intrigued me most about that particular exercise, in which we took part—not without a good deal of criticism—was the almost total lack of black faces in the membership, at least in the part which came from Liverpool. Of course I did not see the full turn-out when it arrived in London. That struck me as being curious, in view of the proportion of black people who make up the numbers of the unemployed. But I had to admit that even in the Church the same is true about the proportions. I have not a single black face in my diocesan synod, which I regret deeply, and that in itself says something about attitudes, not only in the secular world but also in the Church.
Noble Lords may know that I spent eight years of my ministry in Rhodesia. It would not be possible in an uncontroversial speech to analyse one's experiences as a result of those eight years. Now I have in
230
my diocese Wolverhampton, which has been, unhappily, in the forefront of racial difficulties, but which, I am glad to say, because attitudes are being changed, not least by some excellent work by the police, is no longer coming to the attention of the media as it did at one time. But those years, and my present exprience, have taught me the part which fear plays in this whole area, how it is aroused by discrimination, how it causes distorted reactions, from the chip on the shoulder to violent resistance, and how on the other side a combination of fear and a sense of power can produce an aggressive sort of anger.
The Motion of the noble Baroness draws attention to the need for effective action, and I would wish to support that wholeheartedly. Attitude changing has to be taken firmly in hand. The law can and should provide a framework, but the great responsibility lies on those in many sections of society who are in a position of leadership, who have an opportunity to influence others. It is a need to give assurance to all sections of society, with determination to rectify discrimination and at the same time to avoid emotive words and actions on either side. There is a need—and I agree with the noble Baroness—to take positive discriminatory action to redress negative discrimination, and I would certainly support the suggestions which she made in her opening speech. Above all, we have to be prepared to persevere where it is very easy to be discouraged.
3.52 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I first express my appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for initiating this debate, and may I also say how greatly I have looked forward to a positive covey of maiden speeches. Having listened to the right reverend Prelate's most moving and thought-provoking speech, may I venture to offer, perhaps on behalf not only of myself but of others who are not speaking this afternoon, my very warmest congratulations.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, it is now five years since the Sex Discrimination Act came into force. I intend to address my remarks to that aspect of this debate. My experience as the United Kingdom delegate to the United Nations Status of Women Committee has made me keenly aware of the fact that the United Kingdom equality legislation is regarded as being the most progressive in the world, and among the most helpful to women. We were in many ways pioneers in this field, and our legislation, particularly concerning the establishment of the EOC, has been copied by other nations.
During the past five years there have been considerable improvements. More and more women and men are moving into non-traditional areas of employment. Married women are now finding it much easier to get mortgages and credit on the same terms as married men. In education, too, we find that the number of women going into university has been rising over the last five years, so that women now account for 43·2 per cent. of all first year students on courses in higher education. It is also worth noting that women are now being offered the opportunity of second chance education.
I should like to cite the success of New Opportunities

231
for Women course at Bangor normal college, and the growth of Lucy Cavendish College at Cambridge which offers degree courses for the mature female student, as examples. There are also signs that a certain amount of desegregation is taking place with regard to the kind of subjects studied by girls at GCE O and A levels. For example, girls accounted for 23·4 per cent. of physics 0–level passes in 1978, compared with only 21·8 per cent. in 1975.
Although these trends are undoubtedly encouraging, they certainly do not permit us to be complacent or to assume that women's career patterns are now well established and unassailable by prejudice, however unintentional. For in many career areas women have still to make their mark, as it were, because the system seems to be stacked against them. The Finniston Committee on the Engineering Profession reported in 1980 that
"less than one-half per cent. of the current stock of engineers are women".
Figures from the Engineering Industry Training Board show that women account for only 22 per cent. of the total engineering labour force, with most of that 22 per cent. concentrated at the low-skilled operator end of the industry.
Your Lordships may remember that when we debated the Finniston Report in the House, the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, Rector of Imperial College of Science and Technology, stated quite clearly that in terms of first-class degrees and graduation prizes women students at Imperial College do twice as well as the men. The only thing stopping them is prejudice, in the home and in the schools, based upon ignorance of what modern engineering actually entails. Girls still equate these subjects with being dirty jobs. Those who have entered careers in engineering know the contrary to be true.
The same could be said of management, where women are also conspicuous by their scarcity. Only 12.6 per cent. of managers are women, despite the fact that women now make up nearly 40 per cent. of the total workforce. My recent experience in the media field made me only too well aware of the discrimination against women, really able women, in the career structure of their industry, and the resentment caused thereby. As a matter of fact, the United Nations and the Council of Europe are also sinners in this respect. The United Nations and the Council of Europe are outside my brief today, but I quote them as examples to show that this country is not alone in experiencing sex and equality difficulties, particularly in view of the noble Baroness's remarks about the career structure of our Civil Service.
The Equal Opportunities Commission has to solve a variety of problems in carrying out its statutory duties, one of which is to monitor the working of the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act, and make recommendations for change. As a result of careful monitoring of both Acts during the past five years, the commission has now drawn up recommendations for 25 amendments to the two Acts and has submitted them to the Secretary of State to place before Parliament at the earliest opportunity.
The aim of the OEC in proposing these amendments is to make the legislation more effective in achieving
232
equality of opportunity between men and women, and, to this end, to make the two Acts more harmonious and more comprehensive. So we should take seriously and pay attention to the recommendations of the commission, our statutory body in the field of equality. The amendments themselves are rather complex, and we do not have time, or rather I do not have time, to discuss them in detail today, but I hope there will be another opportunity to do so in this House. So leaving aside for this reason matters of equal pay, I should just like to mention one example of the proposed amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act.
The amendment which I refer to is the amendment to repeal Section 51 of the Sex Discrimination Act within 10 years. Section 51 effectively exempts from the Act all legislation passed before December 1975, which means that vast areas are outside the scope of the Act—areas such as social security legislation, immigration and nationality legislation; and the questions of the unequal retirement ages for men and women, and of the different treatment of men and women by our taxation system. Not only that, but Section 51 is also being used with regard to obscure statutes and local government by-laws—for example, a woman was refused a research fellowship at St. John's College, Cambridge, because of a statute dating from the 1920s which did not permit women to be admitted as members.
The basic intention of the proposed amendment is to shift the burden of responsibility for monitoring the currently exempted legislation and its continuing justifiability, if any, on to the relevant Government department. It is absolutely vital that this and the other amendments proposed by the Commission are taken on board so that the real objectives of the equality legislation can be given effect without further delay—an end to sex discrimination, and the realisation of genuine equality of opportunity between men and women.
I should like to mention one or two other points. With regard to the family income supplement, a working man and a single-parent family in low paid work, claim family income supplements as a right. At present a working woman with an out-of-work husband and with children is not entitled to claim. I know that this is to be put right in 1984, but I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister why must we wait until then? Why not now? I should be interested in his reply.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I too would hate it to be thought that my interest in equality of opportunity is one-sided. Therefore, I should like to point out that a marked feature of recruitment complaints during the last two years has been the increasing number of inquiries from men. I understand that this year those represent approximately 32 per cent. of the total number of recruitment inquiries. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It is interesting to note that some of the male complainants have been unemployed and have been refused interviews for jobs traditionally regarded as women's work.
I take this debate very seriously, but even the most serious subject has its lighter side. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will not think it inappropriate if I end on a somewhat frivolous and personal note in agreeing with Lady Birk's remarks about reverse

233
discrimination. Had my husband become Lord Trumpington I would automatically have become Lady Trumpington. As things stand, he remains Mr. Barker. This has led to much stimulating "pillow talk" in our household. He has so far withstood my suggestion that he should change his name by deed poll to Duke Ellington in order to outgun me! Indeed, he says that he feels like a bishop's wife. However, I think that a situation whereby my son becomes the Honourable Adam Barker, whereas my husband's name remains unchanged, smacks of the ridiculous.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, in claiming the customary indulgence to a maiden speech I hasten to begin by assuring your Lordships that my pillow companion for the last week has been the little red book from which I have learned that it is my duty to be short and unprovocative. I can give every assurance on the first point and such assurance on the second as my tender conscience will permit.
The subject of sex and race together, or separately, is an explosive one. Both are of great importance and, on the whole, I regret that we are not in a position to treat them separately. What links them seems to me to be not only the fact that they are areas in which discrimination regrettably occurs, but that they are treated by our law in a curious way. They are now two important branches of the law which we have been discussing relating to sex discrimination and racial equality, the enforcement of which is taken outside the ordinary machinery of Government—the departments of responsible Ministers—and handed over to bodies which have come to be known colloquially as Quangos. It is, I think, no disrespect to those who sit on these bodies or to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, who will be speaking to us later this afternoon, to say that there may be something in the view that the slow progress which is made in some respects is due to the fact that people say, "Well, these are, of course, laws, but they are not laws like the laws about larceny, divorce or whatever it may be: they have been taken out and put into a category of their own, they are quasi laws". That is a matter which, if we are seriously concerned to use the law in this field, we may have to consider again.
However, when we come to substance there is a great difference, as I think previous speakers have said, including the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. In the field of sex discrimination taken by and large, and taking the international comparisons which the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, offered us, there has been a considerable degree of success. But, of course, that success has been made easier in the case of sex discrimination because the objective of the legislation is so much clearer. The objective of the legislation is to say that where a woman seeks employment or engages in a profession or in any other activity, she should be treated exactly in the same way as would a man of similar attainments and standing. That is something which everyone can understand and it is, or should be, easy enough for the courts or tribunals to discuss.
The surviving disabilities of women are largely outside the field, as I think previous speakers have agreed, with which legislation can deal. Some arise from far
234
reaching economic changes in our society as well as from the particular economic difficulties that we confront today. Others arise from attitudes, particularly in the field of education which has, unfortunately, the result that some women cannot claim the full benefits of the legislation because, in fact, they do not possess the attainments which would be regarded as necessary in the case of an applicant for a particular post. In that sphere action by the law is very difficult. Action is only possible by a change in public sentiment, a change in the schools and a change in the attitudes of families towards what they hope for from their daughters.
It is my fear—and I hope that this is not controversial—that some of the changes that have been made in our educational system designed to assist the progress of women may actually have held it back. I think that there is some evidence that girls are more likely to go in for these unpopular and difficult or to them new subjects in mathematics and the sciences in single sex institutions than they are when they have immediately to come up against boys whom they assume are going to be better than they are themselves.
As regards higher education, I regret the disappearance almost completely of institutions of higher education run by women for women, if only because it has removed some of the laudable prospects of promotion which a woman entering on a professional career would have had a generation ago. But, as I say, in this field we have done well. In the field of race, as the right reverend Prelate has reminded us, we face enormous continuing difficulties and setbacks. There again, I think the reason is partly that, in our legislation and in our exhortations, we are trying to combine two objectives which are themselves much more complex. One of them is to prevent discrimination against people because they are black or brown, as we would prevent it because they are female rather than male; in other words, we are trying to remove an inequality which can be seen and which statistically can even be measured. Both these functions fall on the same Commission.
The other is to bring about a society in which these groups—for they are groups, the minority and the majority—can live side by side in harmony. To do this means a change and means bringing about changes in attitude which the law can no doubt stimulate but which the law cannot itself wholly control. I think that it is very important that one should consider historically and in relation to the experience of other countries which have faced similar problems—because in this respect our problems are by no means unique in the world—what it is we mean when we say that we accept the fact that Britain is now a multiracial or multi-cultural society. Do we mean this totally? Do we mean to say that we would be prepared to see a society develop in which particular groups in the community, perhaps because of their feeling that there is discrimination against them or perhaps for other reasons, prefer to live lives and to organise their social lives and, indeed perhaps even their professional and commercial lives in ways which minimise their contact with the rest of the community? Or, on the contrary, do we mean that we wish them to enjoy a common framework—the common law and common institutions of our common country—and only within that framework

235
bring to our common country the particular contributions of their own cultural heritage?
This may sound an academic point, but I believe that it takes us to the heart of the problem and, indeed, to some burning issues of the day. Let us suppose—and I hope that this will not happen—that when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, comes to conduct his inquiry into Brixton, he is faced with an unwillingness on the part of some representatives of the communities affected to appear before him. That, in fact, would mean that there are people who already feel that our legal processes—our constitutional processes—are insufficient to give them the justice that they rightly crave.
Similarly, going outside the legal and institutional field to the field of education—which again has been touched upon, and rightly, by previous speakers—it is obviously important that the way forward for children from West Indian or Asian families—and, as we know, it affects Asian families less—is that they should get the jobs for which they naturally hope, but not because the law compels a quota system or anything of that kind, but because they are equal in their capacities and in their training. To me the most important part of the speech of the noble Baroness was when she pointed out that, although we have known that this problem was likely to arise with the new generation of children born in this country to immigrants from the Commonwealth, we have taken very little note of this in our educational policy. Again, some of the changes that we have made in our educational policy—for instance, more informal methods of teaching, a neglect of serious study of English, English grammar, English pronunciation, and English spelling—can be laughed off by children of well-placed families of native origin, but they bear with particular hardness on the children of the immigrant communities. Indeed, we know that many of the parents of these children feel the same.
Despite, as has been admitted, a gloomy outlook on this, I do not think that there is any reason why we should regard this as a field which cannot be discussed, rationally in this House and, I hope, elsewhere without provocation. For myself, on this first occasion on which I have the honour of addressing your Lordships, as the child of immigrants to this country, I feel and know what discrimination is about, and feel and know that it is something with which we can deal.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Baroness for giving us this opportunity to debate this very important subject and for the clarity of her speech in introducing the debate. It is always a great pleasure to listen to the noble Baroness, and today was no exception. I wish to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, on their maiden speeches. They both made very good and interesting speeches, touching on the subject of our debate. I am sure that your Lordships will look forward to hearing them both on many other occasions in debates in your Lordships' House.
I also want to anticipate the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney. My noble friend
236
and I were both, of course, on the London County Council together. In fact he, Barry Payton and I represented the constituency of Stoke Newington and Hackney, North on the London County Council from 1961 to 1965, during the period when each parliamentary constituency in London sent three members to the London County Council. Subsequently my noble friend left to enter the other place; Barry Payton became a town clerk, and I was left to continue to represent Stoke Newington and Hackney, North, or Hackney, North and Stoke Newington as it is now called, and that I did until 1977. Therefore I am very glad to be joined once more by my noble friend and look forward to listening to his maiden speech and to many contributions to your Lordships' debates, which I know will be very valuable. When I made my maiden speech in County Hall he was sitting beside me, so I am very glad to have the pleasure of repaying the compliment by sitting beside him when he makes his maiden speech immediately after I sit down.
If I concentrate on the question of racial discrimination and racial disadvantage, it is not because I rate the question of discrimination on the grounds of sex as being of less importance, but because I am more knowledgeable on this aspect of the subject than on the question of discrimination on grounds of sex. For many years I was deeply involved in activities to combat racial discrimination. Among other things, I was deputy chairman and, for the last period of its life, chairman, of the Community Relations Commission. For nine years, I was chairman of its fieldwork committee.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for dealing so extensively with discrimination in employment. It is the area in which discrimination is most damaging, but it is also the area in which it is easiest to deal with discrimination. It is unfortunate that this discrimination continues purely because of our failure to come to grips with it. In this respect the Government must carry the biggest blame. It is the field in which they have the most influence. As the noble Baroness said—and I do not want to repeat all she said—the Government have the weapons with which they can influence what happens in the employment field perhaps in a way they cannot do anywhere else. I am sorry that the Government have persisted in dragging their feet on this matter.
As the noble Baroness has said, the Civil Service department has refused to monitor the question of equal opportunity in that department. That is a great pity. But they have also refused even to review and monitor their race relations clause in contracts. For the last two years the Government have been besieged by the Commission for Racial Equality to review and monitor their race relations clause in contracts. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the last Government were able to use their power of contract to enforce their incomes policy, and did it until Parliament refused to allow them to continue to do so. This is a field in which the Government have the sort of weapon which they can use. It is a great pity that they continue to drag their feet on it.
The Government need to set an example to private industry. Private industry will follow, but it is pointless to go to a private employer to try to persuade him to see that there is equal opportunity in his business

237
when he can turn around and say to you, "Well, the Government do not do it". I hope that the Government will take this on board and be serious in their action in this field. I know that the Commission for Racial Equality have been trying to secure Government support for a comprehensive code of practice to ensure equal opportunity in employment. I really hope that the Government will give the necessary support and take the necessary action in this field.
The massive unemployment which exists in the community at the present time carries with it massive youth unemployment. Young blacks share with their white peers the experience of increasing unemployment, but they also suffer additional disadvantages directly related to their colour. Combating this disadvantage involves a whole range of activities, starting with the provision of more nursery places, more nursery schools, greater attention to the education of minorities with the provision of more black teachers and better motivation of young blacks, and the provision of a second chance for those who miss out during the period of their journey through the school system. It also involves a massive increase in training facilities. I must say at this point that I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has said, particularly on this question of the education of black youngsters.
All these matters call for effective action on the part of central and local Government. Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 placed on local authoritis a duty,
"to make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that their various functions are carried out with due regard to the need—

(a) to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination; and

(b) to promote equality of opportunity … between persons of different racial groups".

But local authorities have not been given any guidelines as to how to comply with Section 71.
What is worse, the previous Government had introduced a Bill which would have provided funds to enable local authorities to carry out this task. That Bill lapsed with the dissolution of Parliament. The present Government have not only refused to reintroduce that Bill but made no attempt to help local authorities to meet their obligations in this matter. I have been told that the need to make provisions to deal with racial disadvantage was taken into account in determining the rate support grant. But as the last rate support grant distribution transferred resources from the inner cities, where the problem lies, to the shire counties I find it hard to believe this.
Moreover, the boroughs which have the greatest need in terms of combating racial disadvantage are the very ones which the Secretary of State is busily penalising by withdrawing their rate support grant because of their alleged overspending. Prevention is always better than cure, and it is much cheaper to help local authorities to provide the facilities for combating racial disadvantage than to meet the cost of disturbances. I hope the Government will bear this in mind and review their policy in this field.
During my period with the Community Relations Commission much help was obtained with community projects from the urban aid programme. The Government should give high priority in the allocation of
238
resources to provision for young people, especially those in multi-racial areas, in the urban programme. Another bit of my experience with the urban programme was that local authorities were often unwilling to contribute their 25 per cent. to the cost of voluntary organisation projects. I think that this can be met by a differential grant for voluntary organisation projects. For example, if instead of the normal 75 per cent. grant the Government gave an 85 per cent. grant for voluntary organisation projects, I am sure that that would act as an incentive to encourage local authorities to propose and support voluntary organisation projects. I hope that the Government will try to take this one on board.
Another development while I was at the commission was the establishment of the self-help fund. That self-help fund proved very useful, but l gather from the Community Relations Commission that the Government have placed the commission in a position where they can only increase the self-help grant by cutting down on other activities. This is shortsighted. The sum here is not large. I gather from the CRC that they propose to allocate £700,000 to the self-help fund. In 1975, when I was still involved with it, we estimated that the fund should have been £I million. It would need to be larger than that now. But the pump priming which comes from a judicious use of this fund can be of inestimable value in providing community facilities, which will make it possible to get the youths off the streets and out of mischief. Here again I hope that the Government will give this further thought.
My period as chairman of the field work committee of the CRC was much taken up with the establishment of local community relations councils. They brought the statutory authorities of central and local government together with the local voluntary organisations to work together to break down barriers between racial groups in their areas. Central Government, through the commission, provided funds for salaries and some projects; local authorities provided the premises, back-up facilities and some funds for projects; and local volunteers brought their enthusiasm, expertise, time, energy and goodwill, and together much good work was done in many areas, and as the right reverend Prelate said, quite a lot of good work was done in Wolverhampton by the CRC.
There are now 102 CRCs and, as has always been the case, they vary in quality and value. More important from our point of view, they vary in the degree of support they receive from their local authorities. I asked the commission to give me a random sample and they have given me eight councils, which I mention simply to show the difference in support that CRCs get. Camden, a borough which the Secretary of State for the Environment is always anxious to clobber—it happens to be the borough in which I live, so whenever he clobbers it I have to pay more rates—gave its CRC £325,015 last year; Hammersmith gave £100,000; Manchester gave £36,533; Leeds gave £22,312; and, at the other end of the scale, Aylesbury gave £300 plus accommodation—I must not forget to add that because we do not know what that would bring the total up to; Redbridge gave only £1,500; Cambridge only £3,750; and Slough only £5,415.
I have given the House those examples to show the

239
difference in the attitude of local authorities towards their community relations councils. When I was responsible for this matter I tried my best to do what I am urging the Minister to do—namely, to take it up with the various local authority associations so that discussions can take place there with a view to getting them to realise the importance of making their contributions to these councils. I am sure the Minister could do that. I did a lot of that when I was deputy chairman of the CRC, sometimes with success but often without, and I believe a Government Minister could do it with much greater success.
The Manpower Services Commission has been very helpful in providing training and special programmes to help unemployed youth. As a high proportion of unemployed youths are black, the MSC programmes have been valuable in helping to combat racial discrimination and disadvantage. Rumour has it—I hope on this occasion that rumour is a lying jade—that the funds of the MSC are to be reduced. That would be a terrible mistake at this time. I hope the rumour proves to be unfounded and that when the Minister replies he will say that this time rumour is a lying jade and that, far from the MSC having its funds reduced, they are being increased, because that is what is required now.
I have spoken for long enough. I conclude by expressing the hope that the Government will concentrate their mind on the problem of disadvantage and do the things required of them in this field. The problem of how people of different races live together in equality and friendship is one of the biggest problems confronting the world today. We have an opportunity of making a contribution to the solution of that problem. For Christ's sake, let us take it.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, it is indeed a privilege for me to be able to make my maiden speech in this Chamber by the side of my noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead. As he said, we have been associated together for many years, in local government—if one can call the place across the way local—and in other endeavours. He speaks from an entirely unique position in this House. He is probably as sorry as I am that it is quite so unique; he would probably prefer it were less so, and I shall have something to say about that shortly. My noble friend's words carry weight not only because of that but because of his long experience of the subject, and I hope that the Government have been listening to what he said and will take account of it when they reply.
I was deeply impressed by the opening speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, not only by the great knowledge of the subject which she displayed but by the extremely impressive manner of its delivery. She abandoned altogether any notes whatever, and I was rather intimidated by that because I intended to have the life-raft of a few notes to help me along the way on this maiden occasion. But I was a little encouraged after the event to see that she was not followed by everybody in that, so consequently I feel a little more confident than I would have done otherwise. However, I shall hope to try to emulate her on some future occasion. If it were not an impertinence for me to do
240
so, I should venture to congratulate my two predecessors in making their maiden speeches, but as a maiden speaker myself it would be quite improper for me to do that, but were it proper I should do it very warmly.
Seventeen years ago I made a maiden speech in another place and I was fortunate on that occasion in that it was on the gracious Speech. That meant I was able to set the scene for my future activities in that Chamber; I could and did talk about many things. If they were in the Queen's Speech I commented on them and, if they were not, I deplored their absence, and it was all in order. This time there is no one to keep me in order, but I did not need correction on that occasion and I hope I shall not deserve it on this.
The range of subjects open to me then was much wider than it is now. I must shortly come to the matters of race and sex which the noble Baroness so cogently drew to our attention, but first I would tell the House that I approached my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, who explained to me that she would be unable to be here for reasons of a prior engagement. I mentioned to her that I intended to refer to my conversation with her and she gave me permission to do so. That noble friend, who caresses this side of the House with a silken whip, told me when I asked for her advice on my maiden speech, "Keep it short, unprovocative, and include a joke". Here conies the joke.
It is said that the celebrated American violinist Isaac Stern was once preparing for a concert when a knock came on the door. "Who's there?" asked Stern. "Yehudi," came the reply. "Yehudi who?" said Stern! Something rather similar happened to me recently when I called on—I am not sure how I should refer to him—my friend (and he is my friend) the Leader of the Opposition in another place to thank him for the recommendation which the Prime Minister was kind enough to pass on to Her Majesty which resulted in my being here. There was no one in the outer office, and so I knocked on the inner door. "Who's that?" asked Michael's voice from within. From my new-found importance as a Peer I called out, "Jenkins", and the question came, "Give or Roy?"
I must come to the Motion. On the previous occasion to which I have referred I covered the world in 14 minutes. On this occasion I shall attempt to deal with one aspect of the problem before us in a little less time than that. I want to talk about racial and sexual discrimination in politics, and in particular in your Lordships' House, but the more so in another place, since, as has already been pointed out, your Lordships' House is less vulnerable in this respect—certainly in regard to sexual discrimination. It is still vulnerable, very vulnerable, but less vulnerable than is the other place.
The situation is not getting better. The number of women in both Houses is ludicrously inadequate to represent the interests of half of our population. While the ethnic minorities are enormously represented in quality, in quantity they are hardly represented at all, as my noble friend Lord Pitt will agree. I am sure that my noble friend also agrees with me when I say that he is entirely dissatisfied with being, as it were, a token person here in our midst.

241
As for women, the fact that we have a woman Prime Minister merely shows that when women are wrong they can be as wrong as anyone else. I hope that that is an unprovocative remark. That we have a woman Prime Minister does nothing to correct the imbalance which disfigures our legislative Chambers. Furthermore, the situation is not much better in local authorities all over the country. On the contrary; women played a more significant role in the old London County Council (to which my noble friend has referred) and in the early days of the Greater London Council. My wife, whom I am happy to say is here listening to me this afternoon, was one of that group of women who played a notable part in the LCC and in the early days of the GLC.
The situation has not improved today. Some people might think that it has not improved in any way; others might have a different view about that. But certainly so far as sexual discrimination is concerned the situation across the way is worse than it was. What is to be done about it? My wife and I recently returned from a visit to the southern states of the United States of America. There are many cities where the "wasps", as they call them (the white Anglo-Saxon Protestants), are in a minority in the population. As for women, I am inclined to think that socially American women have overtaken men. Economically they are climbing the ladder more rapidly than are our women, but politically they are probably no more advanced—perhaps even less so.
But the Americans are doing something about it, which is more than can be said for us. In many cities—Winston-Salem, in North Carolina is an example—women and black people must be elected to the governing body in proportion to their numerical strength in the community. Thus we have the position, the racially and sexually balanced solution, that these cities are governed by councils which correctly represent the sexual and racial nature of the populations whom they serve. There is perhaps a lesson here for us, one which we could do well to study. In some cases in the United States the governing majority now is both black and female, and in most cases that does not appear adversely to have affected the political distributions of the area. I think it is time that we here looked at this problem in this positive way. I do not say that we should go the whole way, but I think that we could march some way in this direction.
But meanwhile the political parties should themselves do something; they should bestir themselves on this issue. How many black faces are there at party conferences? How many women are there at the conferences? Of the first category, hardly any; of the second, far too few. I am proud of the fact that the selection conference which met at Dulwich last week to choose a successor to my friend, Mr. Sam Silkin, gave itself the choice of three women and one black man. There was not a single male "wasp" among them. That seems to me to be an admirable example of how to proceed. I am not quite so proud of the fact that at the conference which met in Putney to choose my own successor as Labour candidate there was not a single black person on the committee which did the choosing, let alone among those from whom the candidate was to be chosen. I am happy about the fact that the man chosen was that notable
242
fighter against racial discrimination, Mr. Peter Hain, and I am sure that Mr. Hain would agree with me when I say that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has drawn our attention to a problem which deserves and demands a more vigorous and a more radical approach than it has received to date.
I hope on other occasions to talk about the preservation of peace and the promotion of the arts—two subjects which engage most of my time. I am chairman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, director of the Theatres Trust, and so on. We can be sure that the bomb will make no distinction of race or sex. Many years ago a Conservative American politician, Wendell Wilkie, drew our attention to the fact that we live in one world. Unless we begin to realise that this is a profound truth which ought to affect every action that we take, unless we begin to realise that and take it to our hearts, we shall soon not be living in any world. An important task before us is to release the latent talent and energy in women and in ethnic minorities, so that they, too, can play a fuller part, not least in the search for peace and in the cultivation of the arts. My Lords, the noble Baroness has done us all a great service in bringing the Motion before us.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, it is with particular pleasure that I congratulate the three noble Lords who have made their maiden speeches in this debate, because, despite all the years that I have sat in your Lordships' House, I do not believe that I can recall a day when we have heard three maiden speeches of such uniformly high quality, even though each speech was quite different from the others. The right reverend Prelate gave us some telling examples of the way in which discrimination works at the level of ordinary individual contacts. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, brought to bear his immense experience of the world of higher education, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, who has just sat down, has given us some extremely valuable advice on the role of political parties, which I personally should be very delighted to see implemented. I have in fact written to every constituency Liberal Party asking them what steps they have taken to ensure that the minorities are represented when they come to select candidates for Parliament, and indeed for the local authorities as well. I feel that we need to get minorities, and indeed women, too, represented in their due and proper proportions on the local authorities as much as we do in Parliament itself. I am sure that we all very much hope that we shall hear frequently in the future from all three noble Lords.
The right reverend Prelate said that we faced a question of attitudes, and, as I say, he gave some very telling examples. I think it is correct to say that the white public is not conscious of the fact of racial inequality for very much of the time, and that there are even still some people who would deny that it exists at all, in spite of the evidence that we have staring us in the face. I have heard white people say that as a result of the legislation of the last 15 years, and in particular the Race Relations Act 1976, minorities actually have a better deal now than native whites; and the people you hear saying this are not

243
just members of the National Front or other extremist groups. It is only when there is an outbreak of disorder, such as happened last year in Bristol and this year in Brixton, that questions begin to arise in the minds of people who are not usually concerned with race relations as to the nature of the grievances which have caused hundreds of people to come out into the streets and riot, and to inflict sad wounds on their surroundings, which are generally much poorer than those enjoyed by the rest of the community.
I think it is at least partly because some of the minorities feel that their needs have been ignored that Bristol and Brixton happened. It was of course an Irishman who once said, "Violence is the only way to secure a hearing for moderation". While one may deplore the cynicism of that proposition, there is an element of truth in it. After the Bristol disorders last year enormous crowds of politicians, social scientists, planners and journalists descended on the St. Paul's area to find out exactly why people had behaved in this way; and, of course, after the Brixton disorders the Government appointed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, to inquire into the origins of the trouble, going well beyond the immediate triggers and looking at the underlying causes. I should like to ask the Government whether they do not think that we should deploy that kind of expertise, now being deployed in areas like St. Paul's in Bristol or Brixton in London, in the other similar areas that one could mention, such as Chapeltown in Leeds, Handsworth in Birmingham, Liverpool 8 and so on, now, before any violence has broken out in those areas, so that we might identify the reasons for unrest and do something about them in advance instead of after the event.
I do not think that the main headings for such an analysis would be very difficult to find. If we read the annual reports of the community relations councils, the local voluntary organisations which exist to promote racial equality and harmony, we should find them mentioned there. I think that a comprehensive policy of racial equality would have to include among its main elements the following principal matters. First, there would have to be non-discriminatory policies for immigration and nationality, including the rules for immigration and the instructions to immigration officers, which are just as important as the law itself. Second, that there must be a far more vigorous attack on discrimination by the Commission for Racial Equality. Thirdly, that there should be, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, genuine implementation by the local authorities of the provisions of Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976. Then, that there should be a new strategy for eliminating racial disadvantage, particularly in employment, as has been mentioned by my noble friend; and, finally, I think, that we need stronger measures to deal with the menace of Nazism, in regard particularly to incitement, the use of public premises and the infiltration into the public service of people belonging to extremist groups, where they can apply their loathsome doctrines.
First, perhaps I may say one or two words about the subject of immigration, because I deal with this on a daily basis. I have to say that without a shadow of doubt the rules are discriminatory, and the way that
244
they are applied is discriminatory. Since the present Government came into office, I have submitted 267 cases to the Minister, Mr. Tim Raison, and out of that number only 25 persons have been of European ethnic origin. Of course, the Government's answer to that is that people who are seeking to come here for settlement purposes are not generally of European ethnic origin themselves, but when they do come here for that purpose they have a very much easier time. We have, for example, the case of Eastern European refugees, who are more or less given asylum "on the nod", whereas if somebody comes here from Pakistan or Bangladesh it takes them as long as two years.
Then, over last year, of course, we had the tightening up of the regulations against non-European immigrants. There was the change in the rules which prohibited girls who were not born in the United Kingdom from bringing in husbands from overseas—an explicitly racist provision which was directed against the girls from the Indian sub-continent. At the time, not only did we point out from these Benches but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, pointed out as well that this was going to result in the United Kingdom being found to have violated the European Convention on Human Rights, and, as we predicted, complaints have been lodged at Strasbourg, which I understand were transmitted to the Government in December. What one wonders about this is, if the Government had a good defence against the charges of racialism which are now being brought by these girls, as they said at the time they had, then why has it taken them so long to give an answer to the case which has been presented at Strasbourg?
Secondly, we had the decisions of the courts, particularly in the case of Zamir, which has led to a witch-hunt against people who entered the country many years ago, on the grounds either that they gave incorrect information to an entry certificate officer or that they failed to give an ECO information which might have persuaded him to refuse them leave to enter. As a result partly of those decisions, the police and the immigration service have been conducting massive witch-hunts to root out illegal entrants and overstayers, raiding workplaces and taking into custody United Kingdom citizens and workers with rights of abode as well as those who may have committed offences—but all of them either black or Asian, of course.
Thirdly, resulting from the notion that any method available should be used to root out people who are not entitled to be here, we find that employers and health authorities have started to check the credentials of workers and patients who are black, even if they may have been living here all their lives. We could be sliding towards a South African pass-law type of society, in which anybody with a black skin has got to produce documentation showing that he is lawfully resident in the United Kingdom on demand from a host of public servants and the police. Then, on top of all this comes the Nationality Bill, which arrives in your Lordships' House the week after next. I will not say anything about it at this stage. I would only remark that the people who will be made into second and third class citizens by that legislation are nearly all of non-European ethnic origin.
I think that there are clear implications in this for race relations within the boundaries of the United

245
Kingdom, because if you want to cultivate friendly relations with a neighbour you do not slam the door in his face every time you see him walking up the garden path. Government's cannot expect the native whites to believe their protestations of enthusiasm for racial equality when they see discrimination being practised so blatently at the ports of entry and in the matter of citizenship.
As my noble friend reminded the House at the beginning of this debate, we gave general support to the White Paper on Racial Discrimination in 1975 and to the Race Relations Act 1976. We believe that the Commission for Racial Equality then established should be the agency for social change, and that its existence has been of value as an earnest of the Government's commitment to a multi-racial society based on equality, even though there is still, as he pointed out, an enormous gap between principle and practice. We do not believe that the CRE has yet been given a fair chance, and we hope that the Select Committee in another place which is now looking at the commission will take full account of the handicaps it has suffered in the short four years of its existence. It has had to contend with Governments and local authorities which, as my noble friend has shown, have refused to set their own houses in order by applying ethnic monitoring to their own staff or by strengthening the non-discrimination clauses in their contracts. The Government have failed to tackle what the 1975 White Paper called—and I quote:
"The related and at least equally important problem of disadvantage";
and the effectiveness of the commission has been undermined by the way in which the Secretary of State has exercised his power to appoint the commissioners.
One result has been that the CRE's use of the formal investigation procedure in Section 48 of the Act has not achieved what was expected of it. The Government themselves set a very unfortunate example, I think, when they sought to prevent the CRE from undertaking an investigation of immigration control procedures, delaying the work by several months and, if I may say so, encouraging other people to use all the legal technicalities in the Act to thwart investigations if they possibly could. Yet it has been found that it is almost impossible to prove discrimination by way of individual complaint, so that makes the general investigation, the Section 48 procedure, all the more important.
My noble friend asked the question: How many such investigations have been set in motion since the legislation came into force? The answer is that fewer than 50 of them have been started—and the noble Lord would perhaps confirm this—and only 10 have been brought all the way to completion. I do not think that one must necessarily blame the CRE for this leaden rate of progress. More resources must be put into this aspect of the Commission's work and, in particular, they should be asked to look into the employment practices of Government departments and local authorities which have been neglected so far; although, as my noble friend said, prima facie evidence exists to show that discrimination is not confined to the private sector. She was also modest in regard to the Tavistock Institute findings. Having read them carefully myself,
246
I thought that they indicated that there was a strong possibility of involuntary discrimination being practised in the recruitment policy of Government departments; although, as my noble friend said, it fell short of proof.
My Lords, moving on from that to the role of local authorities, the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, pointed out that Section 71 of the Act placed a general duty on them to see that their functions were carried out with due regard to the need to eliminate racial discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity. Shortly after this came into force, the Liberal Party wrote to some hundred local authorities to ask them what action they were going to take to comply with the provision, and we found that many of them took what I thought to be the smug attitude that, since they themselves never discriminated, this section could not have been intended to apply to them. Very few were prepared to monitor their functions by keeping ethnic records of the citizens who accessed the various services they provided—which is the only way to establish conclusively that equality does or does not exist. As has been said, it is humbug to pretend that you have an equal opportunities policy when you do not bother to monitor it either at Government or at local authority level. In fact, there is every reason to suppose that the minorities do receive inferior treatment from local authorities. The PEP study, Racial Minorities and Public Housing, found in 1976 that black people were kept waiting longer on the housing list than the native whites and were given lower quality dwellings when they got to the head of the queue.
Then there is the National Dwelling and Housing Survey of 1979, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, which established that minorities were worse off in terms of over-crowding, sharing the use of basic amenities and age of the housing they received. The Greater London Council undertook a survey and found that their allocation policy resulted in black applicants being nearly three times as likely as white ones to be offered accommodation in the less popular pre-war estates. The London borough of Lewisham discovered that two-thirds of its lettings to black people were in the less popular areas of Deptford and New Cross, which accounted for only half the vacancies in the borough. Wandsworth also concluded that, although their black families received an equitable proportion of the available council housing, it was of inferior quality. Those are the better authorities which have undertaken those analyses and have taken the trouble to find out what has been happening. It is not unreasonable to suppose that, where the facts are not available, the housing conditions of the minorities are likely to be even worse. The policy of the previous Government was that statistics should be compiled on an ethnic basis provided there was a sound policy reason for doing so. I think that the need has been abundantly demonstrated in the case of housing. It is a great pity that, as others have said, the Government have set an appallingly bad example in deciding that they will not monitor within their own field, thus giving local authorities and private employers the let-out of saying: "Why should we do it if the Government do not bother to do it themselves"?
The 1975 White Paper described the phenomenon of racial disadvantage in these terms: the first generation of immigrants worked in low-paid, low-status jobs

247
and tended to live in poor and over-crowded living conditions within a depressed environment. Their children suffered from that environment and from poor educational facilities which went hand in hand with the rest of that picture, thus growing up less well equipped than other children to deal with the difficulties that faced them. They tended to be trapped in the worst housing and the worst jobs, and nowadays they are lucky if they can find work at all. The White Paper concluded:
"It is the Government's duty to prevent these morally unacceptable and socially divisive inequalities from hardening into entrenched patterns. It is inconceivable that Britain, in the last quarter of the 20th century, should confess herself unable to secure for a small minority of around a million and a half coloured citizens their full and equal rights as individual men and women".
What has happened since then? The Liberal Party made a very modest proposal in a paper entitled A Programme for Racial Equality that £50 million a year should be put into education and training courses which would be designed to bring minorities up to a common starting point in the competition for jobs. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, talked about people being equal in their capacities and training and said that we had taken very little note of the needs of the second generation minorities in regard to education and training. I agree with him. What happened during the period of the Lib/Lab pact? I went to see the previous Home Secretary with this planned programme for racial equality and I was dismissed with the parrot phrase, "Positive discrimination". That was given as a reason for not putting any money whatsoever into education and training programmes designed not to give preferential treatment to minorities but to ensure that when they came to the point of applying for jobs, they were equipped as well as the native whites would be to meet the growing competition.
Then, just over a year ago, we sought to introduce in this House the Local Government Grants (Ethnic Groups) Bill, which had foundered at the previous election, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt. That would have provided assistance for local authorities in removing disadvantages from which an ethnic group suffered and securing that the services provided by local authorities were as effective in relation to ethnic groups as they are in relation to the rest of the community. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said then that this went in a directon which many felt was ill-advised in setting up what he called a wide-ranging special fund involving significant additional resources. How else can Government tackle racial disadvantage unless they are prepared to put additional resources into that problem? It seems to me that the very nature of the problem of racial disadvantage is one of resources, since the victims are by definition under-provided and the solution must be to bring them up to the level of the rest of the community.
We already try to do that inefficiently by means of Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966, which even the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, agreed focusses attention too narrowly on the problems of being new to this country. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that the review of Section 11 which had been announced by the Secretary of State shortly after the present Government took office had "reached an advanced
248
stage"; yet now, a year later on, nothing has been heard of the results.
Then there is the problem of what the Government themselves do. This was mentioned by several noble Lords. My noble friend Lady Seear mentioned the idea of putting into the contracts let by local authorities a clause prohibiting discrimination. That has been an idea which has been floating around for some time but nothing has been done about it. Then there is the code of practice which was mentioned by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt. That was published in February 1980. Nothing has yet happened. I understand that the CBI and the TUC have said that they are prepared to accept the documents but that the initiative has stuck somewhere in the Department of Employment. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us what is the next step in getting this code of practice widely adopted.
Finally, on the question of the direct role of the Government, I should like to underline what the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, said about the role of the MSC and particularly the present state of affairs where the unemployment of young blacks is so very much worse than that of young whites. The work of the MSC is absolutely vital, and it would be wrong to make any cuts in its programme—quite the reverse. If we are not going to store up very serious trouble for future generations, then that money should be increased.
Now I turn to the menace of Nazism which has to be considered by your Lordships. One aspect of racial disadvantage of particular concern—and all are agreed that it should be treated as a matter of urgency—is the ugly cancer of racial violence. When minorities are under physical attack they obviously cannot play their full part in the life of the community. The Nazis and their vicious allies have actually murdered and also brutally assaulted hundreds of individuals. They have attacked mosques, synagogues and gurdwaras. They have terrorised football crowds and intimidated defenceless women and children. The Secretary of State was absolutely right to set up an inquiry into the activities of extremists groups and the extent to which they have been encouraging attacks.
However, it was a mistake—and I tried to get this point across to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, without success—to have this inquiry conducted entirely by Home Office officials and in private. The minorities should have been given the opportunity of representation on the inquiry itself and not merely among the witnesses. Separately, there has been an inquiry into the Public Order Act. It has been a matter of great concern that although the power to stop or divert marches likely to result in serious public disorder exists, the Nazis have been allowed to parade through areas like Southall and Lewisham at enormous cost in terms of police manpower. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who said in answer to a Question that the Lewisham march alone cost the taxpaper over £100,000 in terms of overtime for the police.
Liberals by definition are particularly reluctant to put restrictions on the right of assembly, but in this instance it is justifiable on the principle enunciated by Mill, that the state may interfere with the liberty of action of an individual where harm to others is likely to arise. Harm to others has arisen from the activities of these extremist groups. Even if it was not physical

249
harm there is obviously enormous psychological damage done by Nazi thugs shouting and threatening abusive slogans outside one's front door and harm done by the revolting publications issued by the Nazis.
I hope that equal attention is being given under the Public Order Act inquiry to the law on incitement. I have sent examples of this literature to the Attorney-General and he has replied that while it is indeed most objectionable he does not take proceedings because he and the Director of Public Prosecutions have come to the conclusion on every occasion when this literature has been submitted to them that criminal proceedings stand very little chance of success. Obviously, it would be worse to bring the proceedings and fail than not to bring them at all. That indicates to me that if the Attorney-General himself and the DPP think that this literature is objectionable yet they know that the chances of success in criminal proceedings are low, there is a need for reform of the law. The noble Lord might be able to tell us what progress has been made in this review of the Public Order Act which I know has been proceeding for over a year now.
Apart from the need to stop the Nazis creating fear and insecurity by strengthening the Public Order Act, there is also a growing awareness of the danger arising from the infiltration of these people into sensitive parts of the public service. It really is intolerable that Fascists teach black children, vet black passengers at the ports of entry, or look after black inmates in prison. How can minorities ever attain equal access to public services if some of the officials who they encounter in the course of their applications are committed to frustrate that policy of equality.
Finally, there is the role of the CRE itself. The evidence given to the Select Committee in another place by the Commission demonstrates the problem very clearly; it is one of massive Government indifference. The Department of the Environment has
"given little consideration to the implications of Section 71".
When the Home Office arranged a ministerial meeting to discuss the CRE's report Youth in Multi-Racial Society, only two Ministers bothered to turn up; the DHSS shows
"little evidence of any central application of the need for an ethnic dimension to policy".
There was supposed to be an ethnic minority element in the new block rate support grant, but a recent answer I had from the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, indicates that, after all, this had vanished. The Commission says
" In short … the Commission's impact on central Government and on public and community service matters has not been as great as we would like".
But the CRE cannot be blamed for its failure to prompt action from a Government so firmly committed to doing nothing if it can possibly help it. We believe that the Select Committee in another place would have done better to focus its attention on the policy of slashing the CRE's budget by £1 million and freezing its recruitment. On paper, the CRE may have been given the widest powers in the western world to combat discrimination; but in practice it has been prevented from exercising them by starving it of resources.
The acceptance of discrimination and disadvantage, and the unwillingness to mount an assault on them
250
by every means possible, is likely to have very serious consequences indeed. The minorities could become alienated from the rest of society, and at the extreme, violence could become endemic—not for the reason given by Mr. Powell, the mere presence of black people in this country, but because of the frustration and resentment of the victims of institutionalised racism. At best, if the tensions are contained, there will be a tragic waste of human resources, with tens of thousands of people prevented from realising their potential because of the colour of their skin.
The Liberal Party is absolutely determined as our constitution says:
"to create a world in which various cultures of mankind can develop freely without being warped by nationalist, racial or religious antagonism".
We hope that in raising these matters in your Lordships' House we have brought that goal a little nearer.
5.18 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, like many speakers, 1 am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for placing this motion on the Order Paper and enabling us to discuss the very difficult problems of racial and sexual discrimination. I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in offering congratulations to our three maiden speakers, all of whose contributions in a different way showed very real understanding of the problems with which we are dealing. The right reverend Prelate said that he did not think it was appropriate for him to deal with the subject of sex discrimination. I was sorry about that particularly when he went on to indicate his sympathy with one area of sex discrimination which is outside the province of the law. Perhaps on some future occasion, when he is not constrained by the non-controversial nature of the maiden speech, he might let us into his secret thoughts in this area.
It will be clear to your Lordships that I have a particular interest in this subject and a particular responsibility. I hope therefore I shall not be exceeding the privileges of the House if I venture to speak on the subject. Because of my responsibilities, I shall only deal with the problems of sex discrimination. That does not mean that I am not sympathetic and understanding of the problems of race discrimination. Indeed, because of my own responsibilities, I feel I understand the difficulties that the Commission for Racial Equality is encountering in its area of discrimination.
The two types of discrimination are really quite different both in nature and intensity, but that does not mean that one is any less important than the other. The problems of sex discrimination are not so immediately apparent as those of race discrimination. They manifest themselves in a more insiduous kind of way. Your Lordships might be interested to learn that on one occasion I received a communication from one of the departments of state—and I would hasten to assure the Ministers on the Front Bench this afternoon that it did not come from their particular departments. In the course of the letter was a sentence which said:
"After all, women have been around for a long time".
Of course they have; they would not be human beings

251
if that were not so. But the whole problem is that because women have been around for a long time, and we have been used to seeing them in a particular role, we tend to expect that they will go on in that old traditional way for ever and ever. The fact is that we refuse to recognise the reality of the changes that have taken place, particularly during the last 20 years, and as with all things, whether the change is for good or not, we cannot put the clock back. The change will continue and women's role in society will continue to change.
A number of speakers—and particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady Trumpington, whose interest in this subject I much appreciate, particularly because of the noble Baroness's international experience—have referred to the anti-discriminatory legislation we have in this country. There is no doubt that basically it is good legislation. In some respects it is innovative and in others it is keeping pace with and facilitating the changes that are taking place. Perhaps change is not taking place as fast as we would like but the process can be seen, and it can be seen in the fifth annual report of the Equal Opportunities Commission, which was presented to the Home Secretary and laid before Parliament yesterday. Both the noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady Trumpington, referred to this progress in the whole area of women in the professions.
It was also said that we have not yet cracked that difficult matter of job segregation: men's jobs and women's jobs. That is absolutely true. If we look at figures for the dispersal of women in the workforce today we find that 1 per cent. of women are in management jobs, 9 per cent. are in supervisory grades and 70 per cent. are in clerical grades. It is a very difficult situation to have to cope with, and it is obviously a situation that cannot be changed overnight. Again, this is where the importance of positive provisions of both the Sex Discrimination Act and the Act for Racial Equality come in. The industrial training boards, and not just the engineering training boards—although they set the pace—have used the positive provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act, but I regret to say that with one exception this positive provision has not been taken up by private industry in its own training schemes. That is really where we need to break through.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is not in her place at the present time. I know she is interested in this subject and that she has listened to part of the debate today, but I am glad to say there are signs of a breakthrough in education, too. Again, references were made in the debate to the number of women now entering the universities and higher education—a greater proportion than ever before. I am also glad to say that we are beginning to see traces of segregation among children into "girls' subjects" and "boys' subjects" being broken down. Again, that is absolutely essential if we are to make progress and if we are to break down job segregation in employment. I am by no means complacent about this, but it is encouraging to see the response the commission has had from many of the educationists and the teaching profession in looking at this whole problem.
One area where we have not broken through is that
252
of policy making. One of our maiden speakers referred to the fact that we have a woman Prime Minister. That, of course, was a tremendous breakthrough, but we have a Cabinet of 22, of whom no other person than the Prime Minister is a woman. We have a House of Commons with 635 Members, of whom 19 are women. The TUC has a general council of 41, of whom two are women. I am told that the CBI has a presidents' directorate of 12, of whom none are women. In the media, the BBC's board of governors has 12 members, and three are women; the IBA has 12 members, and five are women. That shows a little progress there, but they still have only five. If we look at the press, there is no woman editor anywhere in the national dailies of Fleet Street; and in the universities there is no woman vice-chancellor. Of the 4,500 professors in the country, only 119 are women.
So women, sadly, are missing from the policy-making areas—though perhaps that is why we have some of the problems that we come across. That may be one of the reasons, for example, why when we run into economic difficulties and difficulties of unemployment, the solution being put forward in some spheres is for women to go back into the home and leave their jobs. This particular thesis has been made in this House and I think perhaps we need to look at the feasibility of that particular proposition.
There are 10 million women in the labour force, of whom 6.6 million are married. We have at the moment, unfortunately, just over 2.5 million registered unemployed, three-quarters of a million of whom are women. It is estimated that something between 250,000 and 700,000 women are unemployed in addition to the official figures, because of the fact that they do not register as unemployed. But even if we take the official figures, 2.5 million and three-quarters of a million women, and if we were to replace all the unemployed men by women—in other words if we take women out of a job so that they could go back to their families—we would still be left with something like 5 million women in the labour market.
The figures do not match up, but in any case who is to say which married women should give up her job, and would it be for a married man or a single man? And what about single-parent families? There are about a million of those in the country, of which 90 per cent. are headed by women. What about their responsibilities? What about those families whose family income would be below the poverty line of supplementary benefit were it not for the fact that the wife was going out to work as well as the husband? The number of people living below that poverty line would increase four-fold, if it were not for the fact that wives are going out to work. So that this argument on statistical and on practical grounds is just not "on". But, in any case, for questions of natural justice and questions of equity, it is not "on" either. I must say I had hoped we had got beyond the stage when equal opportunities for men and women were regarded as a luxury, to be enjoyed only in times of prosperity.
Given the legislative framework that we have, what further steps do we need to take in order to eradicate sex discrimination? First, may I comment on the legislative framework itself? I do not want to trespass on your Lordships' tolerance here. I shall not go into the whole of the 25 recommendations

253
which the Equal Opportunities Commission has made to the Home Secretary. But I would underline what the Baroness, Lady Trumpington, has said, that these amendments are based on five years' experience—five years in which we have sought to test out the law, to see just how far it could be used, where the gaps are and where the planks are. The amendments that we are recommending are intended to stop up those gaps and to make the present legislation more effective.
I was very interested when the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said that anti-discrimination laws are quasi-laws. I was not sure what he meant by that. I think that those people who have to go through our legal system, from industrial tribunals right up to your Lordships' House and, indeed, across to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, will not regard them as quasi-laws. I think they will accept that they are laws of the land which have to be obeyed. But there is a very strange feature about the laws of the land, because one of the premises on which we in the Equal Opportunities Commission have suggested amendments to the Government has been that we bring our legislation into line with European legislation.
It seems to me rather strange that a person cannot go to the courts in this country and plead English law, in order to get equal pay on the basis of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value, but that we can begin to test out this concept in t he court in Luxembourg. It would be much simpler, and certainly much less expensive for the taxpayer, if our own very simple and readily available system of industrial tribunals could be used, rather than having to go through to Europe and, step by step, begin to spell out the implications of European legislation.
In her contribution, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, very rightly said that we now need to begin to talk about what equal pay for work of equal value means. Yes, my Lords, we do need to talk about this. The Commission is under no illusion. It is not an easy concept and it is not a concept which can be easily tried. We are involved in discussions with a number of governmental institutions, as well as the two sides of industry, to try to work out the kind of criteria that would be necessary in order to operate such a concept. We are equally conscious of the fact that there had to be a five-year run-in period to the Equal Pay Act in 1970, and there may have to be a five-year run-in period to changing the concept of equal pay. It is not something which will happen overnight. It is something which, if we give careful attention to it, could be taken aboard by industry, step by step, without too much disruption, which is exactly what happened when the Equal Pay Act was first put on the statute book. So while we do not need wholesale new legislation, we need to stop up the gaps in the legislation that we already have.
We need more opportunity for equal access to subjects. We have equal access to education, but we do not yet have equal access to subjects. Some children have to opt into a particular subject. For example, it is not easy for a girl to say "I want to take metal work" and find that she is the only girl in the form among 30 boys taking that subject. She has to make a positive decision in order to do that. Likewise a boy might have to take a similar step in order to study domestic science or home-making. The fact is that
254
in some schools the curriculum is so organised that these two sets of subjects—so-called traditional girls' subjects and so-called traditional boys' subjects—do not coincide on the timetable, so that boys and girls can have a sampling of the two kinds of subjects. This is the kind of discussion that is going on now in the educational world in order to see how we can make equal access to subjects much more a reality than it is at present.
We want the opportunity to train both men and women for the new and emerging industries in an integrated labour force. We must think in terms of an integrated labour force and not in terms of a dual labour force, as we have done in the past. Again, this is where the positive provisions of the Sex Discrimation Act come into play. Then we need an opportunity for women to return to employment after they have had their families and when their children are beginning to get a little older. Alternatively, we need opportunities for families to share responsibility; for the partners in marrage to share responsibility. There is not equal opportunity. There is some discrimination in the system if women have to fit themselves into the traditional male patterns of employment. Finally, women need to be treated as individuals in their own right in respect of taxation, social security, and, above all, retirement.
We have had a Green Paper on taxation and discussions are now taking place on it. I hope that we may be able to iron out some of the present discriminations in the system. I am not so optimistic about being able to get rid of the discrimination in retirement ages, because the White Paper on questions of the elderly including the retirement age, which the Government have published, does not give a very hopeful view of the future.
The fact is that many of the discriminations suffered by both men and women arise from the fact that there is this discriminatory retirement age. There is discrimination in redundancy and discrimination in access to all kinds of facilities. As regards privilege travel for retired people, even if a man retires at 60 on an occupational pension he cannot get his special bus pass until he is 65. So it is not just the one subject of the retirement age; it is all the many facets that derive from it.
So there are a number of areas in which we could strengthen our existing legislation. There are one or two areas outside the scope of the Sex Discrimination Act where we call for positive action and new legislation from the Government, largely in the area of social security. But, above all, I stress the fact that the major source of discrimination against women arises from the fact that women have not been regarded in the past as individuals in their own right. They have always been looked upon as dependents: dependent on their fathers, their husbands or even their brothers. It is not asking very much of society to treat women as individuals in their own right. This is the fundamental, philosophical and attitudinal right which women are seeking as well as all the material things which have been mentioned in the debate this afternoon.
5.40 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, may I, too. thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for initiating this debate.

255
I should also like to thank the three maiden speakers and give them our good wishes. In this debate I wish to speak on the part of and on behalf of West Indian women, particularly those with children under five and to go on to the problem of children who are under five whose parents, particularly the mothers, must work. Over the past 18 months it has been my orivilege to serve on the committee of inquiry into the education of children in the ethnic minority groups. The committee was established in March 1979 as a result of the report by the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration on the West Indian community, thus highlighting widespread concern over the under-achievement of West Indian children in our schools. This was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. The committee of inquiry decided to publish an interim report on the problems and needs of the West Indian community and at a second stage to complete the report by relating it to other ethnic groups who also have their needs and problems. May I say that I think the white indigenous population is not without its problems.
The Minister of State announced in another place the impending publication of the interim report and recommendations concerning West Indian children in our schools. Alas! I am sad and sorry that this report has not been published in time for today's debate. I gather that the printing of reports takes time. Important as this one is, it has had to take its turn in the queue. When it is published, may I commend it to your Lordships' House, and in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who initiated this debate. I do not think it will be out of order if I base my few remarks upon what I learned during these deliberations and upon my personal experience with the Oxford Community Relations Committee when I was director of social services in Oxford City. The committee consists of 20 members, men and women, under the chairmanship of Mr. Anthony Rampton. We are black and white British. Some of us have our origins in the Caribbean, some in the Indian sub-continent and some in the United Kingdom. On this committee there is therefore no discrimination on the grounds of sex, race or creed.
Any group of people settling in another country has adjustments to make, even after one or two generations, but some have greater adjustments to make than others and therefore are more vulnerable. This is no reflection on them as people. It is only that the problem is more difficult. It calls, on the one hand, for great effort on their part to adjust and to settle. It calls, on the other, for great understanding and sensitivity on the part of the host country, as well as maturity of thought and behaviour on the part of the entire population.
In order to deal with the difficulties, it is essential to appreciate the differences in culture and background. Again these differences have to be understood both by those who have come to this country and by those who were horn here. I should therefore like to confine my few remarks to the position and place of the West Indian woman.
As I understand it—I have read as much as I possibly can on the subject and I shall certainly go to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for some help on this at a later stage—the history of the West Indian woman in the
256
Caribbean was that of bringing up her children single-handed and at the same time working. Many of your Lordships will have read the book The Mother who Fathered Me. History dies hard. West Indian women came to this country without the support of grandmother, aunts, uncles, families. They brought with them their culture of working and looking after their children, many of them without a father. Therefore, there started to be this feeling towards the West Indian child that perhaps he was not so intelligent as other children.
I should perhaps mention that 68 per cent. of West Indian mothers go out to work. This has to be set against a national average of 42 per cent. Two generations ago, perhaps, the feeling solidified that because the West Indian mother went out to work she did not have time to talk to her child, to play with her child, to read to her child, to be with her child and to establish relationships with her child. By the time they went to school it was thought that West Indian children were two years behind the rest of children at the age of five. And if you start two years behind children at the age of five, you never catch up; it goes on and on. This has become a kind of norm which is quite inaccurate. I should like to pursue how best it can be dealt with.
I have talked to many West Indian women. They tell me that when their children are very young they would prefer to be at home but that either they are on their own or their husbands are earning such small wages that they must go out to work. As the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said, there are not the back-up services—the day nurseries, the nursery schools—for the children. This means that as the children grow up they are always behind, which is extremely damaging to their self-image. Let us never forget that the child is father to the man.
This brings me to the question of equal opportunity: of women having a career, of women nevertheless having children, being the home-maker, establishing relationships with children and bonding with them at a very early age. About a year ago I gave away prizes at a school which has a very high academic attainment. Most of the girls to whom I presented prizes were going into medicine and the law. One was going to become an engineer. It was my old school and I was heartened by this. In my speech to the girls I said that perhaps women are extraordinarily fortunate in that we have the opportunity of two careers: the career of marriage, home and children, and the career of whatever it is that we decide to take up. The girls are taught to be quiet during a speech but when I said this I found, to my absolute astonishment, that it brought the house down. The girls clapped and clapped. In the end, the chairman had to ask them to stop.
I found that very interesting, because it seems from this that although girls want a career, they also want to be wives and mothers. I absolutely agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, when she said that the role of women has changed and cannot change back. I am not sure that I would want it to change back. Those of us who have been fortunate to have a career and to have done the work we wanted to do realise how very satisfying it is and would want every other woman, be she married or unmarried, to have a career—and rightly so. Nevertheless, in this country we have not yet resolved the problem and the difficulties

257
of the wife, mother and woman with a career. Until we have resolved this dilemma, we will continue to have problems in respect of both sex equality and racial equality.
With regard to the Rampton Committee, I was fortunate enough to be chairman of the group dealing with the under-fives and I have been very heartened by the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has been going round together with Sir George Young—no relation, but just a case of equal opportunity!—from the Department of Health and Social Security to see what should be done in this country to provide back-up services to women who want to work. However, I have to introduce a jarring note here and say that the children of this country are the citizens of tomorrow and if they do not have a bonding experience and a happy home in their early years, we will have problems all the way along the line. If women do not have children—and after all, men cannot have them yet …
Lord Elwyn-Jones: And have no ambitions to do so, either.
Baroness Faithfull: Yes, but if women pursuing careers cannot also have children, the population would drop. We must face the problem of how we are going to help women who want both a career and to be a homemaker and a mother. If we talk only about women having a career, then we denigrate the institution of marriage. Marriage is a career and the art of being happily married and having a career is perhaps one of the greatest privileges that a woman can sustain. I would ask the Minister—although I do not think that he can answer this—whether it is the Government's intention really to look at this problem of supplying back-up services for women with younger children so that they do not lose their place in the career structure and can give their children the love, care, sensitivity and quietness which children require—with the result that in the future our society will be one that has grasped the changing role of women but has not deprived children of their birthright?
5.54 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to those which have already been expressed to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for introducing this debate. I am sure that the noble Baroness has been particularly gratified by the spread of the arguments and the general nature of the debate itself, epitomised by three remarkable felicitous maiden speeches—and I should also like to congratulate the noble Lords who made them.
The emphasis in this debate has been on two themes. One has been the field of articulate representation; of improvement in enactments and in administrative effort. Much has been said about the improvements which need to be made to existing enactments and the more sensible application of the intentions of various proposals which have been made by Governments and which have been to some extent implemented by those who are expected to carry them out. I would invite your Lordships to return to the other aspect, which to me is more important. It is that aspect concerned with
258
changes of opinion and conviction and with alterations in the attitudes of men and women. It is surely beyond question that however admirable may be the enactments which are made, unless they carry with them the general consent of an intelligent community which at least can be persuaded to try to make them work, then it is highly unlikely that the enactments will be successful.
I speak as a churchman, and I believe that we have a very heavy load of responsibility for discrimination both in matters of race and in matters of sex. I would go so far as to say that the issue is fundamentally a religious one, but that assertion demands some kind of definition of what religion is all about. I believe there has been a recrudescence of religion as a sense of ultimate dependence, but I do not believe there has been a renaissance of faith; we have yet to wait for that, but I hope it will come quickly. The concept of religion as an attitude that is promoted first by other reasons and then becomes cemented within its own rights can be best illustrated by reference to the whole question of apartheid in South Africa. I wonder whether your Lordships know that, of the 14 members of a previous Administration in South Africa some years ago, 13 were paid-up members of the Dutch Reform Church. The satellite in this galaxy was a Plymouth Brother.
Nevertheless, here was a Government pledged to a particular attitude derived from the synods of the Dutch Reform Church itself, which until three or four years ago specified apartheid as being necessarily adduced from a proper reading of the Bible. Your Lordships will know that the Bible is a magnificent servant but an intolerable master, and in many cases one can decide what one wants the Bible to say and then look up the appropriate text.
The Bible itself is a cornucopia of such references. The fact is that the apartheid of the Dutch Reform Church was characterised by something that goes far deeper and finds its roots in the whole missionary spirit of Non-Conformism and Protestantism in the 19th century. I was brought up on certain hymns which may not be unfamiliar to your Lordships, such as "From Greenland's icy mountains"—from which your Lordships may remember the verse:
"What though the spicy breezes
Blow soft o'er Ceylon's isle,
Though every prospect pleases
And only man is vile.".
We in the Methodist Church could not find Java on the map and so we put in Ceylon instead, but Java does appear in the original version. The fact is that, whether one thinks of Java or Ceylon, there remains an attitude of superiority on the part of those who went from Western Christendom in an endeavour to convert those who lived in total darkness in deepest Africa; I do not believe that this attitude has disappeared I find it very deep-seated in my own work. I find continuously that there are those, who whatever their protestations of ideas on equality, are nevertheless the legatees of this kind of discriminatory atitude towards those of other colours.
It is for the Church, among other institutions of persuasion, to take upon itself the very important taks of destroying the cult of missionary superiority against which many have rebelled in ways which are increasingly

259
hostile in themselves. Alongside this attempt to Westernise the rest of the world in terms of religion has come a multiplication of all kinds of queer, charismatic, peculiar and idiotic sects. They are committed to the very kind of racism which first they abominated when they found it operating upon them from the other side of the world. Here is one of the outstanding responsibilities of an intelligent and worthwhile Church today: to destroy the superiority cult which I still believe very largely prevails and has left its effects upon generations which would not recognise it as having come first of all from the tutelary attitudes of the Church of the 19th and later 18th centuries.
I believe that the same thing has to be said about sex discrimination. I do not perhaps feel myself as inhibited as my noble friend the right reverend Prelate about women in the ministry. We have solved that problem in Methodism, more or less, and I think I can speak for any bishop in saying that it is intolerable effrontery to suggest that divine grace of certain kinds can only flow through masculine viaducts. This would seem to me to be utter nonsense, and I am sure from the smile on the face of my noble friend that he would agree with this and I have great pleasure in speaking for him and for others who believe that some way and somehow this kind of sex discrimination has to be obliterated in the sense that in respect of women it is a very serious bulwork against any kind of future for a Christian Church in the vastly changed world of which we have just heard.
May I venture upon your Lordships' indulgence to remind myself of where this question of the superiority of men comes from. In the initial stages we are somewhat in difficulty in Christianity because Jesus said very little about this subject and what he said was more or less what his Jewish antecedents had said. Many people today recognise, quite properly, that it was for the Christian Church to fill the gaps that were to be found in Holy Scripture and they filled them to their own satisfaction, but I think deplorably in many respects, in as much as from a celibate ministry they conceived a concept of masculine divinity and in fact in particular matters, knowing very little about science, they believed that in the procreation of man the provider was man and the carrier was women. So that, at the best, a woman was the cradle in which love and succour and nourishment were provided for the oncoming life; at worst, woman provided the kind of carton which was required in the initial stages but at a suitable time could be discarded.
I know that there are many people who would regard this as a ridiculous kind of assumption. I would plead with your Lordships to believe that it has its residuary effect in a continuing belief that somehow man is a more important and first-rate creature than woman. I speak with due care but, at the same time, I have found in my own ministry that this pervasive idea of the inferior status of women is not only proclaimed by men; it is sustained by very many women, and it is in that regard that a great deal of understanding should be accorded to those who have not been able to break away from a fantastic concept of how life comes into this world and who is responsible for it.
It is for the Church to take its courage in both hands and to tell the truth. When it tells the truth it will
260
shed a very different light on questions such as abortion, for the relationship of abortion to the concept of who is the primary and fundamental person in the bringing into the world of new life has had a very great deal to do with the perverse attitude to this very contentious issue into which I will not go any further.
I believe that here in this religious sphere is a continuing problem, and of course in the realm of persuasion it belongs to the Church to endeavour at least to face it, if not totally to resolve it. But I believe also that it is required at this moment to do something which I think only politically can be undertaken, to provide an atmosphere of greater equality and a sense of community for those who are now separated by antagonisms, senses of discrimination and unfair treatment; and we have had an eloquent declaration from speaker after speaker of these disadvantages and discriminations.
I have a lively faith regarding such existing disadvantages set within a community which can give a sense of unity where it now gives much less—if indeed it gives anything more than a sense of separateness. I believe that there will be a very marked influence upon those who are still the residuary legatees of attitudes largely promoted by the Church but which have nothing to do with Christianity and, what I consider is even worse, nothing to do with the kind of world in which Christians and others would like to live in peace and quietness.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, my first and pleasant task is to congratulate the three maiden speakers in this debate. I see the spires of Lichfield Cathedral as I travel home to Anglesey every week. They are an expression of hope in an uncertain age and the speech of the right reverend Prelate was also a message of hope which was based on his considerable experience, not only in this country but in Africa as well. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, had a rather different perspective. He is a distinguished historian and he made a thoughtful speech. His references particularly to the laws and quasi-laws on discrimination need careful study. What is important from the point of view of the Government is, first, that the law is enforceable and, secondly, that it is carried out; and if it is not enforceable it is the duty of Government to bring it to Parliament to be repealed and replaced with a better law.
Then my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney spoke with wit and a knowledge of these problems which he has gained as a councillor and a Member of Parliament here ill London. I am sure that the Government will wish to heed what he has said. He advised us about the need to increase the representation of women in both Houses. The speeches that we have heard from noble Baronesses in this debate seem to me to prove beyond doubt that their presence here in increasing numbers is essential. The three maiden speakers have made important contributions to our debate and we shall look forward to hearing from them on future occasions.
The debate has been a wide-ranging one. This was to be expected because the noble Baroness to whom we are indebted for this important discussion, framed her

261
Motion so as to include two of the most burning issues of the day, namely, racial discrimination and sex discrimination. They are not necessarily related, as noble Lords recognise and as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, pointed out, and I think they are more easily dealt with separately.
So far as racial disadvantage is concerned, let us be clear about one thing: there is no lack of public discussion and debate about this subject. No topic has been more thoroughly investigated from every viewpoint over the last few years. In the press, the media, Parliament, the local authorities, the Churches and in other public bodies, the debate has been continuous over many years and our discussion this evening is one more contribution to it. My point is that coverage of the subject has not been neglected. The pressure of events has not allowed us to forget it, and during this debate we are conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Scarman, is at present performing a most onerous and complex task on our behalf. I think everyone on all sides of the House would agree that he deserves the utmost support especially in the area in which he is working. I hope that he will be given that support by every interested body and that there will be no obstacle of any kind to the noble and learned Lord in the performance of his duty. It is vital in the interests of racial harmony that he should be allowed to complete his task thoroughly and effectively.
Racial discrimination is no new phenomenon in these islands and this is something that coloured people might bear in mind. I started reading an article under the heading of "Problems of Racial Discrimination" in a magazine recently and discovered after a couple of sentences that it dealt with discrimination against Welshmen in Wales in the 14th and 15th centuries. I shall not go into that scholarly disquisition in any detail, save to say that discrimination at that time was authorised by the Government of the day and carried out by its servants at every level. I should not care to argue that modern Governments deliberately discriminate against any section of the community on grounds of race although I have reservations about the Nationality Bill which will come before this House shortly. But, on the whole, post-war Governments of all complexions have made strenuous efforts to understand the problems which have arisen as a result of the great immigration which has followed the dissolution of the British Empire, and to find solutions to them.
Noble Lords have referred to these problems and the difficulties, and we should remember a fairly obvious truth—this was referred to in the speech, which the House appreciated, of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull; namely, that anyone emigrating from one country to another must face difficulties in adjusting to a new way of life. English families going to Australia today face acute problems of adjustment, as we have heard on many occasions and, indeed, many of them return to this country. The difficulties are compounded, of course, when colour and different religions and cultures are involved. They are made worse in this country first because this is a comparatively small and heavily populated island and secondly because we are going through an economic recession with higher unemployment than we have known since the pre-war period, unemployment which is still rising. Poverty, unemployment and racialism overlap. The
262
streets of London are not paved with gold. The task of helping immigrants to adjust and feel that they are part of the community is made infinitely harder when they find there is no work for them, or that they are discriminated against when looking for a job.
In a memorandum submitted to the Race Relations and Immigration Sub-Committee in another place, the Department of Employment had this to say:
"The majority of minority group workers were not born in the UK and received most of their education and training overseas. Many find it difficult to adjust to the unfamiliar culture and to the customs and practices of an industrial society. This problem is aggravated for those—a substantial number—who have a limited knowledge of the English language. Problems stemming from language difficulties and cultural differences make it difficult for ethnic majority workers to understand and to be understood. This hinders them in getting a job. It also puts them at a disadvantage in the workplace once they have obtained a job, in doing the job, in making use of facilities for training and promotion, and in securing acceptance by white workers. The need for an effective industrial language training service has long been recognised ".
The Department of Employment went on to say that racial discrimination remains a problem, notwithstanding the 1976 Act, and expressed concern about "concealed and indirect discrimination", which is difficult to expose.
The fact remains that unemployment among ethnic minorities is substantially higher than the average and it is clearly the Government's responsibility to ascertain the reasons in detail and to take action to remedy the position. The House appreciates that the Race Relations Employment Advisory Group and the Race Relations Employment Advisory Service have been set up to help Ministers on matters relating to the employment of ethnic minorities, and it will this evening wish to know what progress these groups are making. The role of the trade unions is also crucial, and it is good to know that the TUC is represented on both these groups. It would, however, not be right for me to stand here this evening without saying that there is a need for a degree of enlightenment among many trade unionists on this subject.
The memorandum makes one further point to which I should refer:
"The difficulties faced by young people from minority groups are partly ones of location. They tend to live in rundown inner city areas.
The difficulties are partly cultural and connected with immigrant status, and can partly be attributed to covert and unconscious discrimination, which the Department of Employment accepts remains an element in disadvantage.
"Some young people also experience linguistic difficulties which may be obvious or which may involve some of the more subtle aspects of English usage. Young people are commendably persistent in the face of these problems".
It is good to know that these young coloured people are "commendably persistent" in their efforts to obtain employment, and they must be helped by Government and other agencies to do so. I should like to pay a tribute to the Manpower Services Commission for their efforts to help ethnic minorities. I think their work is admirable and their reports are worth reading. They experience difficulties from time to time, as some noble Lords have pointed out. Nevertheless, given the times in which they are working, I believe they have made very good progress.
Other noble Lords have referred to the Commission

263
for Racial Equality, and the recommendations which they have made to the Government are again of the first importance. I have no time to go into these in detail, but I should like to know from the noble Lord how many of these the Government are proposing to implement. For example, they ask that Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 be reviewed and that cash limits on expenditure under it are not imposed. They ask that the Manpower Services Commission be given more money to meet the demands for special training, and so on. These are all reasonable requests. The House appreciates the financial difficulties which the Government are facing at the present time, and we are not asking for large subventions of money. We are saying that small amounts of money put in the right place could be crucially helpful at the present time.
Reference was made, I think by Lady Faithfull, to the teaching of English, and I agree with her remarks. Mr. David Smith, who wrote an excellent article on "Unemployment and Racial Minorities", has this to say:
"Asian men who do not speak English well have a distinctly higher risk of being unemployed than those who do. Thus at least half of unemployed Asian men have a serious linguistic handicap. Forty-five per cent. of unemployed Asian women speak English only slightly or not at all".
This is an extremely serious situation when you come to consider the non-availability of work in this country at the present time. The provision of jobs, of housing, of appropriate education and of training—all these are dependent in the final analysis on this country's economic performance, and it is only in the climate of economic expansion that the problems of race in Britain can really be solved. In a period of recession like this, the difficulties are compounded.
I should like to say one more thing. I have been travelling to London from North Wales on my parliamentary duties for well over 30 years, and I have seen great changes in the nature of the community here in London. I should like to pay a tribute to the tolerance of the English people. This is not often appreciated or voiced here and I may be permitted to say it. They, as well as the coloured immigrants, have had to make adjustments. If we are to resolve this problem in the spirit to which the noble Lord, Lord Soper, referred—in the Christian spirit—then we must do all we can to help the new coloured community and the old community to live together and to understand each other. This is where the Government, the agencies they have set up and most of all the Church, have a contribution to make. The Church has lost a great deal of its influence in this country over the last 50 years. No one would be happier than I if the Church were to regain this ground, give an inspiring lead and help in the solution of this problem. In their consideration of this problem, the Government will need to consider that aspect as well.
When we come to sex discrimination—and I want to make a short speech—we discover that although the subject is a different one, the forces which militate against racial equality also affect sex equality. Female unemployment has been worse than that among men. I could quote endless figures to prove that. The Equal Opportunities Commission has told the Home Secretary that the growth of unemployment among
264
women, combined with inflation, has contributed to a growing sense of uncertainty and insecurity among women. They point out that progress towards equality in measurable requests—for example, in terms of earnings—has come to a halt. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to comment on that when he replies and give us the latest figures.
One senses that the Equal Opportunities Commission is going through a period of intense frustration and that it needs encouragement from the Government. Like other noble Lords, I have received today the Fifth Annual Report of the Equal Opportunities Commission. I have not had an opportunity to study it as I would have wished in preparation for this debate, but what I have read indicates two things to me. The first is that the commission is really doing a first-class job, and I should like to pay a tribute to my noble friend Lady Lockwood, not only for her speech today, but for the work which she has accomplished as chairman of the commission. I believe that the commission deserves all support from the Government.
I believe that the Commission for Racial Equality deserves equal support. We heard something about its work from the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, to whom one listens on this subject with very great respect indeed. We were given the flavour of the job and also an idea of the immensity of the task facing the commission.
In conclusion, I should like to say that this is a daunting task for any Government to tackle. I should not like to pretend that this Government can perform miracles overnight. What they can do is to proceed forward step by step, to show by positive action, by reasonable grants of money—for example, to the Manpower Services Commission—by accepting the recommendations made by my noble friend's commission and by accepting the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on the question of monitoring, that something can be achieved. The noble Baroness said, "I do not expect monitoring on a large scale now from the Government: I want limited monitoring in a fairly narrow field" That surely is a concession that the Government could make without embarrassment or large-scale expenditure. There are many small but significant things that the Government can do to help in both causes. It is absolutely essential in the interests of the future of this country that they should do so.
6.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has given your Lordships' House the opportunity to debate three very important and interrelated topics: racial disadvantage, racial discrimination and discrimination on the ground of sex. Each of the speakers who has made a maiden speech today has approached those subjects from his own particular stand-point. However, each of the speakers—my noble friend Lord Beloff, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney—met eventually in their speeches on the common ground of showing concern for the subjects of disadvantage and discrimination to which their speeches were directed. I should like to make it clear that the Government share this concern

265
and have made clear before—and I make clear again now—that we are fully committed to a society where all individuals have equal rights in law and equal opportunities in practice.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield reminded us of the essential importance of our own attitudes in this matter. The desire to share together the responsibilities for making our society work is, it seems to me, the only way forward if we are to achieve the harmonious and prosperous society that we all seek. I know that there is still a long way to go, especially in the area of racial equality and also, of course, in the area of sexual discrimination. There is a lot of important information in the report of the Equal Opportunities Commission which the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, presented to your Lordships' House yesterday and which was published today.
It is a sad fact that, particularly in education, housing and employment, the ethnic minorities in general fare less well than the majority of the population. The reasons are not always clear and advances have often been slow and piecemeal. At the same time I think that it is fair to claim that probably all of your Lordships are aware, from the daily experiences which we all have, of the contribution which members of the ethnic minorities are able to make. It is nevertheless clear that they have special needs and that Government must take account of these in formulating their policies and their spending programmes.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penhros, made a very constructive speech and he specifically asked me about the Government's spending programmes. I should like to say a word or two about spending programmes in the area of racial discrimination and racial disadvantage. It is particularly important that the Government's special measures to help unemployed people have been considerably expanded and the Youth Opportunities Programme will now provide in this year 50 per cent. more opportunities for unemployed young people. The new Community Enterprise Programme which helps the adult unemployed will give priority to areas of high unemployment.
Your Lordships might be interested if I remind you that the Manpower Services Commission which administers these programmes is now setting up, in consultation with the Commission for Racial Equality, a number of experimental posts whose function will be to enable ethnic minority organisations to plan and organise suitable schemes for young and long-term unemployed.
The Industrial Language Training Service, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred, funded by the Manpower Services Commission, has also done a great deal of work in providing in-company training for many non-English speaking workers in industry. Here again, the Government are committed to encouraging improvement of language training in the workplace and, despite the general need for economies, language training facilities have been expanded.
However, arguably, I think that one could say that perhaps the first necessity when children are ready to go to school is for nursery education. I do not think from the speech which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, made that she was aware that there had been an increase of 5,600 extra nursery education
266
places since the Government came into office. It is not enough, I know, but at least it is quite a significant increase. But, of course, many children come from homes where English is seldom used. Cultural differences may also lead to their failing to benefit fully from their schooling. Therefore, again arguably, the first requirement on entering the primary school—or the secondary school, if a child has perhaps come to this country at that age—is for second language teaching. Schools and local education authorities are also increasingly realising that teaching in schools needs to reflect the diversity of cultural backgrounds which exists in today's society.
If I may say so, in all this I think that governors of schools have a part to play. Of course, I realise that boards of governors are not responsible for the curriculum; that is a professional matter. But, after all, governors represent to their school the wishes of the local community which the school serves, and when the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, pointed—quite rightly—to the relative absence of black people on elected bodies in this country, I reflected that now that last year's Education Act gives the right for parent-governors to be elected to governing bodies in schools, perhaps this will give the opportunity for more members of the ethnic minorities to serve on school governing bodies.
The Department of Education and Science has set up the Committee of Inquiry into the Education of Children from Ethnic Minority Groups, first, under the chairmanship of Mr. Anthony Rampton and now under the chairmanship of Lord Swann. I thought that my noble friend Lady Faithfull gave us in her speech an absolutely fascinating insight into the forthcoming report on the particular needs of children of West Indian origin. We shall await the almost imminent publication of that report and, of course, we shall also await the follow-up report, which I understand will be published some time later, on the educational needs and attainments of children from all ethnic minority groups.
My noble friend Lady Trumpington reminded your Lordships that the further education system also provides a second chance for people of all ages. Here again, some action has been taken. The Department of Education and Science has encouraged certain local authorities to establish special preparatory courses, aimed particularly at students from the ethnic minorities, to enable them to reach a standard necessary for entry to training courses for teaching, social work or, indeed, general higher education. Five education authorities have already set up such courses.
A particularly encouraging factor is that training courses for youth workers in the London area are attracting people from the ethnic minorities. The operation of the youth service is at present under review in the Department of Education and Science, and one area which will be looked at is how it can be better adapted and made more attractive to young black people.
A great deal has been said in this debate about the place of spending programmes in preventing disadvantage, and I still bear in mind that I am trying to answer the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, on this point. Perhaps I could remind your Lordships that the Government's urban programme is running at

267
£290 million for this year, and this money will be used to finance a wide variety of economic, environmental and social projects in the inner city areas. Of course, a number of the projects aided by this programme will have been put forward by ethnic minority groups and community relations councils. This year we expect to pay some £45 million in grant to local authorities under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, will not mind me saying that I felt he spoke a little as though Section 11 grants had ceased altogether, although I realise that he was not, in fact, saying that. £45 million is a great deal of money, and the greater part of it will be used not only for educational purposes, but also increasingly by local authorities for such purposes as ethnic language librarians, health education officers, specialist social workers and various other activities related to local needs. A number of boroughs also employ race relations advisers, who are funded under Section 11.
I know that I have said before in your Lordships' House that Section 11 is under review, and noble Lords have every right to ask what has happened to that review. I must make clear what was given in evidence by the Home Office to the Subcommittee on Racial Disadvantage of the Select Committee on Home Affairs in another place; that we must see what are the implications of the new rate support grant arrangements. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has also promised to take account of any views of that subcommittee when it reports on racial disadvantage.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, as the Minister knows, the first thing about Section 11 is that it is only for staff and, therefore, it has a very limited value. I am glad that he is touching on this question of the rate support grant complement relating to racial disadvantage. I should like to hear something about that. I should like him to dilate on that, because what has happened is that the rate support grant has been redistributed away from the inner cities to the shire counties. When that has been done, how can you say that you have taken account of racial disadvantage?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I thought that I had made it absolutely clear to the House that what we wished to do, what we intend to do and what we said to the Subcommittee on Racial Disadvantage, which is considering that matter in another place, is that we want to consider how the new arrangements for rate support grant will, in fact, work out in practice. The noble Lord has made the suggestion that they will work out in a highly disadvantageous way. I am not so sure that the noble Lord is right, but at least in order to show that we are genuine in what we say, we are making it clear that we shall not make any changes in the Section 11 grants until it has become clear—and we said to the subcommittee in another place that this would not be until at least after the autumn—how the new arrangements are working.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, No. I think that that was a fair and reasonable answer, and I must get on. In addition to the effects of Government spending programmes and existing legislation, the Commission for Racial Equality, established under the Race Relations Act 1976, has the task of eliminating racial discrimination and promoting good race relations. However, I do not mind admitting at once that spending programmes, legislation and the work of the CRE are not enough. I accept that good race relations overwhelmingly depend on a positive effort by everyone in this country, and I accept that here the Government have their part to play.
The Government are concerned by signs that racially-motivated attacks on persons and property may be on the increase in certain parts of the country. For this reason, as your Lordships will know, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary recently set up a study into racialist activities. In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said—and it was not for the first time—that the ethnic minorities ought to be represented on this study. But if the noble Lord will not mind my saying so, I think that he misunderstands the objective of the study. It is supposed to be a fact-finding operation to examine the activities of extremist groups which seek to stir up racial discord. Representatives of the Home Office are talking on the spot to local authorities, to the police and to ethnic minority representatives in order to discover whether additional measures are necessary to combat these attacks. I think that this is the speediest and the most thorough way of going about it. It gives everyone a chance to have their say. I am absolutely certain that the Secretary of State was right to take this initiative.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, we have been over this ground before. The noble Lord is telling the House that black people are incapable of discovering for themselves (if they were on this inquiry) the, if you like, etiology of these racist attacks, because, of course, all the Home Office officials who have been appointed to deal with the matter are white.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I must admit to the noble Lord that I do not see the matter in those terms. I see it in the terms that I have just set out. If he would like to read what I have just said, he may see it in my terms as well. I was interested to hear the tribute which was paid by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield to the work which the police have undertaken in recent years in Wolverhampton. I think that cooperation is a two-way process, and while the police constantly have to bear in mind the importance of their relations with members of the community, which they serve, so all of us must understand that only by co-operating with the police—and that means reporting crime to the police when it occurs—can we get on top of the problems of public order which from time to time beset this country.
Discrimination not only causes injustice to individuals; it can lead to a waste of talent and potential which this country can ill afford. If we are to increase the prosperity of the country, we need more than ever to harness the skills and abilities of all our citizens. The Commission for Racial Equality I know still finds disturbing evidence that applicants for work are

269
rejected not on their merits but because of their colour or because a prospective employer holds stereotyped views about black people as a whole.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, spoke particularly about the position so far as the Government are concerned. The Civil Service of course has had a formal policy of equal opportunities since 1969. Indeed, the noble Baroness referred to this. The noble Baroness referred also to the commissioning of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, of which she is the chairman, to undertake a study to establish the effectiveness of race relations policy in the Civil Service. May I repeat what was said by the noble Baroness, that the Tavistock Institute's report did not reveal any evidence of racial discrimination, but it pointed to potential hazards to fairness in employment procedures.
The noble Baroness then said, "What has happened to the Tavistock Institute's report?" Following the publication of that report a joint working party of management and trade unions, both industrial and non-industrial, was set up to follow up the report. The working party has been unable to reach agreement on the desirability of recording the ethnic origin of staff and applicants for jobs because of differing views between the unions. As a consequence, it is not certain that staff would co-operate to achieve a head count that was both comprehensive and accurate. I shall not conceal from the noble Baroness that when the Government took the view against monitoring we were also not convinced that censuses and the like are the most appropriate and effective ways of using the scarce resources which are available; I am saying this of course against this rather unpromising background of lack of agreement which I have just mentioned so far as the follow-up to the Tavistock Institute's report is concerned. But I should like to leave this by simply reminding your Lordships that the responsible Minister, my noble friend Lord Soames, was present while the noble Baroness was speaking and I know will have taken serious account of the speech that she made.
It is the truth that the procedures for recruiting and promotion in the Civil Service, which include procedures formally agreed with trade unions and subject to appeal, provide a substantial safeguard against unfair discrimination. So far as discrimination on the grounds of sex is concerned, the Civil Service has an honourable record. It introduced equal pay long before there was any statutory requirement, and was among the first employers to do so. Recently a joint review group of management and trade unions has been reviewing progress since the Kemp Jones Report, to which the noble Baroness referred, and in considering ways of further improving opportunities for women.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me about the work of the Race Relations Employment Advisory Group and the Race Relations Employment Advisory Service. I shall not go through a note I have here about the functions of both the group and the service because the noble Lord referred to both, but I should like to give an assurance that, as I understand it, the work of both the group and the service is in good heart, is continuing, and is valued by the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made two points which I must pick up before I speak for a moment or two about the important other part of the noble Baroness's Motion. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury,
270
made an assertion, as I understood him, that officers of the immigration service showed discrimination in their personal attitude, if I heard the noble Lord right.
Lord Avebury: You did.
Lord Belstead: Then I just have to make it clear that I reject that charge completely. So far as the Commission for Racial Equality investigation into immigration control is concerned, the Home Secretary has said that the Home Office will respond as helpfully as possible to requests for information by the commission in connection with its investigation. Some material has already been made available to the investigating team, and senior officials are discussing with the commissioners the general line to be followed in relation to the provision and protection of sensitive information.
The other important point which the noble Lord raised was that he referred to a witch hunt towards those who may be suspected of being here in employment, but illegally. I want to make it crystal clear that the Government do not accept that there is any need for members of the ethnic minority to feel that they must carry their passports with them as a matter of routine. Towards the end of last year my right honourable friend the Home Secretary reviewed the arrangements for joint police/immigration service operations against illegal entrants and overstayers. The results of the review were announced by my right honourable friend in another place on 12th December and appropriate instructions were issued then to the immigration service and a circular was sent out to the police.
Searches for illegal immigrants and overstayers take place only where there is specific information that offences are being committed. It may be that some employers ask their employees or job applicants to produce passports if they have good reason to suspect that employment restrictions are being evaded. That is a matter for them if an occasion arises when they need to be satisfied that a person is lawfully here, but the Government attach the greatest importance to any such requests being made without discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, or creed.
Finally, on these first points, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, have referred to the CRE's powers to undertake formal investigations. The noble Lord asked specifically how many such investigations have been started. Of course, the choice of formal investigations and the numbers undertaken are matters entirely for the commission, but I understand that by the end of March 1981 the commission had embarked on 45 formal investigations, 23 of which related to employment and some 10 of which had been completed.
The Government are also firmly committed to a policy of equal opportunity and treatment for women in employment, and seek to encourage employers, workers and their unions to develop practical schemes to this end. I think we all are well aware of the advantages and progress as well as the disadvantages of the legislation in this particular field. We are also well aware of the value of the work of the Equal Opportunities Commission.
In recent years the rise in registered unemployment for women has, I admit, been faster than it has been for men. But this needs to be seen against a background

271
of the very large increase in the numbers of women entering or seeking employment at a time when employment opportunities in the traditional areas of work are decreasing. In case the noble Baroness may say to me that I am immediately leaping to conclusions which are stereotyped and taking views as to who should do what in the world of work, may I remind your Lordships that not very long ago the Department of Education and Science issued a booklet called The School Curriculum. In paragraph 54, this important passage was included:
"The Secretaries of State"—
meaning the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Wales—
"consider it essential that career opportunities should be kept equally open to boys and to girls. The obstacles to equal employment opportunities for women are deeply rooted in attitudes in the home and in society. Schools can do much to diminish these obstacles through the content of the curriculum, the way in which the work is organised and the subjects taught, and careers guidance, as has been illustrated in Her Majesty's Inspectors' recent paper Girls and Science".
I do not find that passage is in any way contradictory to the very interesting observation which was made by my noble friend Lord Beloff, when he gave the view that there is much to be said for preserving schools for girls where pupils' expectations can perhaps develop in an atmosphere which is sometimes a bit more relaxed than in the competition of mixed schools. At any rate, as I understood it, my noble friend was saying—and I support him in this—let us preserve some single sex schools.
I was also interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, say that the attitude to subjects in the curriculum were still guided by attitudes to what suits boys and girls, and I hope she may feel that what I read out from the booklet of the Department of Education and Science shows where the Government stand on the matter.
The Manpower Services Commission recognises that women wishing to return to work after several years out of the labour market and those wishing to enter non-traditional areas of employment may encounter special difficulties. The MSC's response to these problems has been in two broad areas; the provision of courses, often of an experimental nature, and the encouragement of initiatives by industrial training boards and other national training organisations to promote training opportunities for women. I would particularly mention that the MSC has developed a range of courses in two priority areas, electronics and computer skills, and courses open to both men and women are available at various levels within reach now of most centres of population.
I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was very fair in drawing attention to the considerable progess which has been made towards equal pay for women on international comparisons. At the same time, it is clear from the latest report of the Equal Opportunities Commission that there is still much to be done in the fields covered by the sex discrimination and equal pay acts if the move towards equal opportunities is to be maintained.
Several noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lady Trumpington and the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, referred to the Equal Opportunities Commission's
272
proposals for 25 amendments to the sex discrimination legislation. The Government recognise the importance which the commission naturally attaches to these proposals. Some of these have complex and far-reaching implications, and we are giving them the careful consideration which they clearly deserve. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has had a helpful discussion about the proposals with the commission's chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and there have also been meetings at official level with the commission. The Commission naturally recognises the importance of securing the support of the CBI and TUC for its proposals, and I understand that consultations are already in hand.
I have tried in the time to cover the ground which has been covered most interestingly by your Lordships. If there are points to which I have failed to reply, I shall write to your Lordships. I am genuinely grateful to the noble Baroness for this extremely important debate we have held today.
6.53 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it remains only for me to thank all those who have contributed to this interesting debate, and in particular to the three noble Lords who made their maiden speeches. The House will not want me at this hour to detain noble Lords for long, but there are a few points I feel I must make. First, I would assure the noble Prelate that I am well aware that it was not the fault fo the House of Bishops in the Synod that further progress was not made, nor indeed to the House of Laity; it was, I understand, the recalcitrant clergy who held up progress in this regard.
I would also tell the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull—and perhaps she will be surprised to hear this—that I have a great deal more sympathy with the point she made than she might expect. I echo what the late Dame Margery Corbett Ashby, a great feminist who died within the last month aged 99, said in 1978 at the time of the celebration of 50 years of women getting the vote; namely, that nothing was more important than to reconcile the two responsibilities and opportunities for women which Lady Faithfull highlighted today. I believe that a great deal of work still remains to be done there.
I am sorry to have to sound an unhappy note at the end of this debate. I must say that I was profoundly disappointed by the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. I could not have made myself clear. Of course, the Government have policies as an employer. What I hoped to illustrate was that nothing has come as a result of the policies of Government as an employer. For the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to say that the Civil Service has a record and reputation as an equal opportunities employer where women are concerned flies in the face of the evidence of the facts. For the noble Lord to pass off the failure to react to the Tavistock Report and to say that, if there is discrimination, there is an appeals procedure which can be used, leads one to ask what use an appeals procedure is to people who are turned down on entry; that is where the Tavistock Institute among others have pointed to the failure to introduce and operate a genuine equal opportunities policy. I am afraid the complacency reflected in the Minister's reply fills me

273
with despair. Above all, I am asking once again: Is it not possible to reconsider monitoring, on a narrow front if monitoring on a wide front is too expensive? With that, once again I thank noble Lords for their contributions, and beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Indecent Displays (Control) Bill
6.56 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ALPORT in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Indecent displays]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out (" indecent matter ") and insert (" matter offensive to the public at large ").
The noble Lord said: With permission, I shall make a few preliminary observations before coming to the terms of the amendment. First, I apologise to the Minister of State for prolonging what I am sure has been an arduous day's work. Nevertheless, I am sure he is stimulated by yesterday's resolution of your Lordships' House and feels quite excited about dealing with this measure after his long sitting on the previous debate. The second is that I regret to say that some noble Lords who have tabled amendments are unfortunately not able to be here, and I was persuaded, out of goodness of heart and conviction, to underwrite them. The result is—and I must acquaint the Committee of this so that noble Lords may be braced for it—that it looks as if I shall have to make 10 speeches during the Committee stage. That must be as appalling to your Lordships as it is burdensome to me, but that looks to be how it is.
The only other preliminary matter I would make is that this issue of indecent displays went through its Committee stage in another place in five sittings with only three Divisions in the course of those five sittings, and in the end to pretty general agreement. On the other hand, the Williams Committee sat for 35 meetings and came out with a unanimous report, and there are differences between the Bill sent to us from another place and the recommendations of the Williams Committee. The question is: Who has got it right and can it be got right?
The Labour Government appointed the Williams Committee after the collapse of the Conservative Government's Indecent Displays Bill of 1973. The Williams Committee reported in 1978 and, as far as I know, there was no debate on the Williams Report in another place, and there has not been even yet. However, in your Lordships' House we had a debate on the report shortly after it came out.
Another observation that I must make is that the Government have chosen to leave this matter to the hazards and difficulties of the Private Member's Bill procedure. This is not a Government Bill. The Government are entitled to advise the Committee, as they did in another place. However, each of us is entitled to express our own point of view, and I presume that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, is in charge of the Bill and is the noble Lord to whom I ought to address my persuasive remarks.
Some noble Lords may think that I am making rather heavy weather of the Bill. Why should I be making any fuss about it? The reason is that I consider that every erosion of individual liberty and freedom should be challenged as a matter of policy and as a matter of principle. I do not think that liberties should be curtailed without adequate debate. When I was a Member of the House of Commons, I always took the view that a timetable Motion should always be opposed, regardless of who introduced it, regardless of whether or not one had sponsored the matter in question. No timetable Motion should be allowed to go through without challenge. I have no interest whatsoever in this Bill. I have managed to get through liffe without falling into some of the temptations to which it relates; but I declare that I am a persuaded supporter of the Williams approach.
So I can spare the Committee those remarks on the debate on clause stand part, or at any other stage of this evening's proceedings, and come to the first amendment. The amendment, although linked to Amendment No. 3, does not necessarily stand or fall with it. However, it may be convenient to refer to the fact that the definition contained in Amendment No. 3 relates to the proposed change in the use of words in the earlier part of Clause 1. This proposal to substitute,
" offensive to the public at large ",
for the word "indecent" has quite a respectable history. It was strongly advocated in another place during the debate on this Bill by a Conservative Queen's Counsel. It was strongly advocated in the Williams Report itself. In fact nowhere in the whole of the debate on this issue—in another place or in the Williams Committee Report—can one find many good words for what is indecent.
When I was reading in the newspaper the other day a report of the speech made in another place by a Minister who had relinquished his position, I noticed that it was said that he had made quite a "decent defence ", and I wondered whether the word "decent" in that context had any bearing on what we are talking about in this Bill. The truth of the matter is that "indecent" has attracted a common connotation that is not connected with our general use of the word "decent ".
One of the aims of the Bill is to make the law more easily enforceable. However, it does not give any clearer guidance than earlier Bills have done, or have attempted to do, on the question of what is indecent, and the police, private citizens, and shopkeepers will all have their own ideas about what is indecent and they will be excused from being in doubt about the construction placed on the word "indecent" from a statutory point of view if they read the authorities on the subject. In the case of R. v. Stanley in 1965 Chief Justice Parker said that indecent matter was

275
"something that offends the ordinary modesty of the average man".
By 1972, in R. v. Knuller, Lord Reid said:
"Indecency is not confined to sexual indecency: indeed it is difficult to find any limit short of saying that it includes anything which an ordinary man or woman would find to be shocking, disgusting or revolting".
Then in 1974, closer to the present time, Mr. Roy Jenkins, when Home Secretary, said that,
" the term ' indecent ' has no meaningful definition and should not be part of any criminal statute ".
Then in 1979 there was the Williams Report, which said that the word "indecent" was now useless and was the source of vagueness and confusion in the law. The committee expressed the view that the word should not be used any further in the law without definition.
Notwithstanding that, we renewed our faith in the use of the word "indecent" in the Protection of Children Act 1978, but I regarded that as a legislative aberration because we passed that Act through your Lordships' House, through Parliament, while the Williams Committee was still sitting, and we repeated the use of the word "indecent" which the committee was then considering to be unsuitable.
The question is, shall we leave the word "indecent" in the Bill, or shall we replace it with something else? Looking at the situation in other countries, I noticed that in Queensland, Australia, the word used is "objectionable ". Well, one can have one's choice of words to express a feeling about what one sees or hears. One of the arguments put forward in another place—indeed, it was put forward by the sponsor of the Bill himself—was that the antiquity of the word was a strong reason for continuing to use it. But that view was of course decisively and unanimously rejected by the Williams Committee. When a Bill similar to the present Bill was before another place on 7th December 1979, the then Minister of State at the Home Office, Mr Brittan, said, as reported at column 821 of the Official Report:
" I do not find it persuasive to say that the term has remained on the statute book for a century and a half ".
He went on to say, somewhat wryly, that,
" One wishes many terms removed from the statute book precisely because they have been there for a century and a half "—
and this word appears to be one of them.
I shall not quote the Williams Report in extenso on this matter, since it is all there for noble Lords to read, but it criticised in detail, and at length, the use of the word "indecent ". The committee came to the conclusion that the word "offensive" should be used. It may be that we have a political judgment about this, or we may feel that we have a better judgment from a public point of view. But I think it is very difficult with respect, to set aside the unanimous recommendations of a committee of the composition of the Williams Committee. It was a very impressive committee indeed; it sat for a long time; and it produced one of the best written reports, I think, that any of us had read for a long time. I noticed that in another place one Member thought it was the most sensible pronouncement on obscenity that we have yet had. Yet we are proposing the third addition to the statute law using the word "indecent ".
In the minds of most people, "indecency" has a sexual meaning. It is something to do with the exposure of genitals, or explicit acts of sex. Yet there are some things which affront members of the public just as much as this kind of indecency. I have already explained, on the Second Reading of this Bill, that some things affront me and disgust me far more than any display of pictures relating to sexual activity. They go far deeper into my nature; and violence and cruelty I regard as the deepest obscenities of all. But apparently we want to keep this on the plain of what people do not like to see, in its shallowest form. That I think is a mistake. I do not believe, as a matter of fact, that there is any real urgency to deal with this matter at all in advance of the Government's own clear duty to look at the whole question and to bring forward a responsible measure of their own over a wider field than this one covers.
The Protection of Children Act 1978 was advanced by the Minister of State in another place as being a purely stop-gap measure to hold a position, which was regarded as urgent and important at the time but which turned out not to be so. It was a holding operation pending the Government's consideration of the Williams Report when it came out; but the Government have shown no disposition to tackle the Williams Report at all. This is another bite at a very difficult cherry; and I sincerely hope that, notwithstanding the view of another place, we shall pay more regard to the recommendations and the convincing arguments of the Williams Committee in looking at the use of the word in this Bill.
" Indecent displays "may to some people reflect what they have it in mind to deal with and to convey, but this to others, and to me, at any rate, is not enough. It has to go deeper than the conventional attitude towards indecency, and therefore I propose to introduce into the Bill the words "matter offensive to the public at large "in place of "indecent matter" on page 1, line 5. I beg to move.
Lord Spens: I do not propose to keep your Lordships very long on this matter, but I would say that I support the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in his initial statement, in that I would hate to see any more of our very restricted liberties further restricted. If I may make a very short aside to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, I shall not be able to be present tomorrow afternoon when a very important amendment is going to be debated because I shall be attending a meeting of a Select Committee, but I shall apply that policy to any vote that takes place.
Having said that, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is really following up that policy by introducing this amendment, because it seems to me that unless Amendment No. 3 is also agreed by the Committee the words "matter offensive to the public at large "carry a very much broader meaning than" indecent matter ". We might be landed with something which could cause enormous confusion in the courts—what is offensive to the public at large?—whereas I would have thought that "indecent matter" can be much more narrowly defined.
I want to ask just one question, which it is probably for the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to answer. It is: What is going to be the timetable for the rest of this

277
Bill? If we amend it, are we going to lose it? I should like to know that because it has to go back to the other place, and I would think that, unless Government time were to be given to dealing with any amendments, we here must be very careful as to what amendments we make.
Lord Sainsbury: I hope your Lordships' Committee will reject this amendment. This question of definition was debated at length in another place, and I think there are at least four or five reasons why this phrase should remain in the Bill. First, "indecent" has the advantage, not only of being in common usage but also of being easily understood. The dictionary definition of "offensive" is:
" disgusting; ill-smelling; nauseous; repulsive".
It is thus, as the previous noble Lord said, a much wider term than "indecent".
The purpose of this Bill is to legislate against displays which offend people. This purpose, in my view, will be defeated if the term "offensive" is used, with its wider implications. Fourthly, "offensive" can be extended to cover political opinions. Fifthly, violence could be said to be offensive. While violence is a problem, it is not against such displays that this Bill is aimed. Therefore, for all these reasons, I hope that your Lordships will both speak against this amendment and, if it goes to the Division Lobbies, vote against it.
Lord Mishcon: This is a Private Member's Bill, and as such, as my noble friend Lord Houghton knows, nothing that is said from this Front Bench in any way commits any one of my noble friends sitting either by the side of me or behind me. Having said that, may I challenge the view that in regard to this Bill and in regard to the specific amendment that we are discussing the question of the liberty of the individual is an essential matter for us to consider. To confuse the word "liberty" with the word "licence" is a mistake which has often been made; and you do not preserve liberty by confusing it with licence. To talk in terms of preserving liberty when you are dealing with people who are making a fortune out of exhibiting pornographic literature to the offensive reaction (if I may use my noble friend's own words) of the large majority of people subjected to that exhibition is denigrating the word "liberty ".
Having said that, may I say that this Bill stands or falls, as I see it, by being supported by your Lordships' House within the narrow ambit within which it was drawn. Therefore, to extend questions to violence or matters which are generally offensive—and this is the only amendment before the Committee at the moment—is, in my judgment, to kill the Bill; and I do not want to see it killed. I hope that my noble friend will not regard me as being in the slightest degree rude when I say to him that some people might regard it as offensive in this House to read an announcement which might be exhibited that any one of the noble Peers present tonight is going to make 10 speeches. It is in those circumstances that one can realise how broad this word "offensive" can be.
This is a term which has been used in our law over a very long period of time. My noble friend Lord Houghton in fact read from Lord Reid's judgment in
278
1972 when he defined what was an indecent exhibition; and I feel that one can deal with this amendment perfectly simply by saying this. I am not impressed, as I said at Second Reading, by the doubt which is supposed to be put in people's minds, be they newsagents or general exhibitors of pornographic literature or whatever, as to what really is "indecent". Most of us know almost instinctively what is indecent and what will give offence as a result of that indecency to the public. If people are in any doubt, let them err on the careful side. I then will rejoice that they have done so and will shed no tears because they have been put in doubt.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: There remains little for me to say after that admirable speech by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. However, I should begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that I welcome his amendment on the Marshalled List for giving this Committee the opportunity to discuss the most important point in the Bill, but I agree with the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that if we altered the Bill substantially then probably—and I emphasise "probably" and not "possibly "—the Bill would be lost. Time is so short for the return of a Private Member's Bill to the Commons, where there must be complete agreement, and there simply would not be time to re-open the major issues. However, 10 speeches from the noble Lord I would find in no way daunting. I imagine that they will not all be 17 minutes long, but I am sure they will be very interesting. I would say this about the amendments on the Marshalled List in the names of some of his noble friends who cannot be here: that for a Private Member's Bill, where a good deal of work must be done to deal with technical amendments, they should have been on the Marshalled List before this morning.
Turning to the points that Lord Houghton has made, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that while we are all concerned with the defence of liberty, here we are very much concerned with a matter of balance. We are concerned not only with people's liberty to express themselves artistically or through literature or however else; we are concerned also with the freedom of citizens to be able to walk down the street without being offended by showcases or shop fronts full of disgusting material. This is what this is about. There is an urgency. Every day one reads in the newspapers of more provincial towns where local citizens are being seriously disturbed because sex shops are arriving and they seem to be unable to check the proliferation. And as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, behind it are very substantial financial interests who are proliferating these outlets because they are making large sums of money from it.
I welcome the enterprise and enormous skill of my honourable friend Mr. Timothy Sainsbury in the other place who conducted this Bill successfully through it. Coming to the specific point which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, put forward, that we should use the Williams Report definition of "offensive material" instead of "indecent", I am sure that he will recognise that, without going into the merits of the Williams Committee which we are not concerned with now, that Committee was seeking a definition for a much

279
wider purpose than this. Here we are concerned solely with display, what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, and a definition of what is not acceptable and therefore where the law should come down and action be taken. This is quite different from trying to find a definition which will be effective in law dealing with the whole spectrum of obscenity. We can have different views on that but it is a different problem.
I would think that "offensive" has very many meanings indeed, beyond the sphere of sex and violence—all kinds of meanings in the field that the noble Lord is particularly interested in, in blood sports. Think how offensive blood sports are to many members of the community. We can think of so many things where "offensive" has a general application. Even with the noble Lord's definition in his Amendment No. 3, which gives us a more specific idea of how he thinks "offensive" should be used, I doubt very much whether it would cover such matters as the apparatus of the sex shop. If that were all displayed in a window—it is extraordinary stuff, intriguing to the young, but certainly indecent. But his definition—even the two put together—would not catch it. No one would be more ready than I to agree with him that this is a matter of opinion. It must be tried out. But it is true to say, as has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, that the word "indecent" is part of existing law, has been reasonably successful and effective within a limited sphere over the years, is understood by the courts and is generally understood by everybody.
On the whole, exprience shows that if one can find a single term which will do that and give general satisfaction and confidence, then I think one ought to stick to it and certainly not to try to give a definition to it. We learned from the 1959 Act that the more one attempted to give definition to a term in this particularly controversial field, the more likely one is to cause problems when it gets to court. I should have thought, in this particular context of this narrow issue of display, the word "indecent" will serve well. It is understood well. Here we are not so much making new law. This Bill is really modernising the existing law, bringing it together, codifying it into one Act which everybody can understand. Therefore, this is a term which is already tested and tried and works pretty well in court. It is better to stick to that than to take a chance and put in a new definition which is not sound for this particular purpose and hope that that would he more effective. The odds are that it will not.
On those arguments I hope that the noble Lord, having given this a very helpful and lucid airing, will feel on balance that it is best to leave it as it is. It is quite marvellous that it should have got through the Commons. It is a highly controversial subject. Nevertheless, it got through the Commons with general agreement, with interesting debates in the Committee stage; it went through the Commons on Report with complete agreement. If we have got something like that, then surely this is something that we should accept and send it back with our blessing and the fervent hope that it will work. I earnestly hope that the noble Lord, having given this particular point a good airing, may accept that the Bill as it is on the
280
whole has the best chance of working, and that he may withdraw his amendment.
Lord Belstead: I am sure that the Committee will acquit me of any discourtesy if I say I shall try not to speak on very many of the amendments. On this first one, it is important that from the Government Benches I should make clear what is our attitude. I should like strongly to support the words of my noble friend Lord Nugent when he asked the Committee to take serious account of the consequences of making a substantial amendment to a Bill of narrow but extremely useful scope.
I shall not try to improve upon what my noble friend has said, and, indeed, what was said most eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about the difficulties, as both noble Lords see it, with the amendment, except to say this. One wonders whether in dealing with a relatively straightforward matter such as public display it is wise to saddle the courts with involved and potentially troublesome definitions of the kind upon which this amendment would embark. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will not mind if I say that on Second Reading the noble Lord said said that the mischief of this Bill is that it adapts the Williams remedy to the old formula; but if he will forgive me saying so, I think the mischief of his amendments is that they adapt the Williams formula to an old remedy. I hope that the noble Lord may consider whether it may be right to withdraw the amendments.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am grateful for the comments that have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Spens, has a point that the relevance of the change in Amendment No. 1 depends on the acceptance of a definition in Amendment No. 3. This is a problem of the Marshalled List. Sometimes we put the cart before the horse because the Bill is drafted that way.
Another thought has occurred to me: it has been suggested that even though the word "indecent" was left in the early part of the clause, the definition proposed in Amendment No. 3 could still be relevant to the word "indecent" if that were put in the definition in Amendment No. 3 instead of the word "offensive", That is something which might be worth consideration when we try to enlarge on the word "indecent" and attempt at long last, after many urgings and refusals, to give a definition to the word. My noble friend Lord Mischon was not indecent in what he said. He came close to being offensive. Occasionally, I am ill-served by noble Lords on my own Front Bench. I sometimes wish on occasions like this that noble Lords who sit on the Front Bench and speak only for themselves would get off the Front Bench and go on to the Back-Benches so that there would be no misunderstanding as to where the words were coming from.
To suggest that I do not know the difference between the words "liberty" and "licence" I find unacceptable. I read in the Daily Telegraph only today that there were 5,000 petitioners who tried to prevent a sex shop opening in Eastbourne. The shop was opened and it had pickets outside demanding to know the names and addresses of people who went in the shop. This shop was boarded up. There was nothing on display in the window, according to the report. The notice was there that nobody was allowed in under the

281
age of 18. Yet this demonstration of militant action outside the shop took place on the day of opening. Where is liberty in this situation? People are entitled to go in that sex shop in Eastbourne as they are entitled to go into Sainsbury's shop in Eastbourne. In those circumstances, one has to get this into perspective.
I have no more patience than the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with the profiteers in pornography; but there are some respectable booksellers who have been harried, harrassed and driven out of business by the activities of the police, who believed they were fulfilling their duty under the existing legislation. One has to be careful in providing new conditions of trading or of living and in giving the police the right of enforced entrance—because that is what we come to in the end—in order to see whether there are any grounds to suspect that the law is being broken. That is where liberty comes in. There can be no pretence that enforced entrance by the police to a person's home or business premises is under any circumstances a light matter. It is not.
So I am sorry to say that T find the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, much more persuasive than my noble friend Lord Mishcon. He has put it to me—and I accept it—that this is a matter of judgment and opinion. There is perhaps a balance of argument one way or another. The Williams Committee unanimously—with the very varied composition of the committee—came to the conclusion that the balance of opinion was on the side of offensive ". Others, believing that this is to deal—at the present time at any rate—with a narrow issue, feel we need not widen the field of offensiveness beyond what is conventionally believed to be indecent. I see that point straightaway. This is not a Bill that tries to deal with the wider aspects of what is offensive but it is trying to deal with what is believed to be at the present moment, as the committee described it, almost a public nuisance. When I come to the next amendment, that is the point at issue.
I am sorry to have taken more time, but if I am provoked I shall hit back. In rather more temperate spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 5, leave out from (" displayed ") to end of line 7 and insert (" that display shall be deemed to be a statutory nuisance ").
The noble Lord said: This is my first act of obliging my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. It is probably unreasonable to unload a new approach altogether on to this Bill at this stage. This amendment introduces the whole concept of public nuisance. It is worth spending a minute or two on the different approach which might have been made by the Williams Committee but which was not. On page 114, paragraph 9.7, they said that they were convinced by the evidence that they had received that an approach directed primarily at curbing a public nuisance would command very wide support. They thought that this approach would be appropriate and acceptable in principle. They moved on into the direction of this
282
Bill rather than into the direction of preventing a public nuisance under alternative legislation.
I think that there are attractions about using the techniques of the Public Health Act 1936 and the Public Health (Recurring Nuisances) Act 1969 to insist on the abatement of a nuisance, that being within the responsibility of the local authority. I admit, however, that local authorities may not be happy to have this wished upon them. They would probably say they have quite enough public nuisances to deal with already without picking up this very prickly one. I would understand that point of view. However, it does remove the nuisance from the criminal law which this Bill emphasises too much—that this is part of the criminal law. This is a pity in a way, because some of it can be almost inadvertent, some of it can be deliberate and some can be brash and repulsive. There are differences in different localities that could be dealt with under the two statutes I have mentioned, which would require adaptation and which could be reflected in the attitudes of local authorities rather than be in the hands of the police.
However, I do not think I can presume on the time of the Committee to do more than mention this and to give it a short airing as a possible line of thought on some future occasion when a matter of this sort comes to be reconsidered, as I believe it will have to be one day. I do not think we can go on with this kind of patchwork legislation, hoping that we can overcome the difficulties as they arise, and building up more and more chaos in the law that we have already.
I shall understand if the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is not in a position to deal with this late proposal of a rather radical nature; perhaps I ought to have had second thoughts about agreeing to underwrite it, but I do feel that there is a line of thought here which is worthy of noting as we go along. I certainly shall not seek to press this amendment. That would be quite unfair. I shall leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, to decide for himself what to do with it later on. However, I beg to move the amendment at this stage, hoping at least that passing notice can be given that there is probably a different remedy available here at some future time which would give local authorities in this field, as they have in so many others, a responsibility and a power to reflect the attitude of local citizens.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I certainly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on handling this major issue so skilfully and at such short notice. It is an ingenious idea and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, on producing it. Certainly it is worth further consideration, but of course it would fundamentally change the whole structure of the Bill and, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, rightly says, it depends on whether the local authorities would be willing to operate it.
It so happens that I approached the local authorities about this Indecent Displays Bill, to ask whether they would take on an additional responsibility which I thought might strengthen the Bill; and the reply was that they were not keen on it at all and did not wish to have any further responsibilities in this field. I consulted all three of the national associations, and the answer was the same from all of them. So I am

283
pretty sure that their answer to this would also be the same: they would not be willing to take it on.
Therefore, it really falls down at the first fence, but it does not alter the fact that the noble Lord made a very valid point from the legislative point of view when he said that this is an alternative approach which is worth thinking about in the general context. I hope—indeed, I know—that my noble friend Lord Belstead and his right honourable friend the Home Secretary are thinking that sooner or later (and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is quite right about this) the Home Secretary really must square his shoulders and bring forward general legislation in this field because legislation on obscenity itself has completely broken down on the 1959 Act and something is needed in its place.
But in this limited context I am grateful to the noble Lord for seeing that it would not be possible to contemplate this at this stage and if we did put it into the Bill it would wreck its prospects in another place. Having given it a brief airing, which is very worth while, and having brought it to the notice of the Committee—it would be interesting to hear what my noble friend has to say about it—I am pleased to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, would be willing to withdraw it.
Lord Belstead: I have nothing to add to what was said by my noble friend Lord Nugent, except that I am a little concerned about an alliance—not, of course, an unholy alliance—between my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in pushing for more comprehensive legislation in this field. However, that is another matter and it falls well outside the scope of this limited but extremely useful Bill. I join with my noble friend in hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, as he has indicated to us, will not feel it is worth pressing this amendment to a Division.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Several references have been made to "this very useful Bill" and the narrow issue that it deals with. I am bound to say that the Government have shown no particular anxieties about this reform in recent years. A Bill was introduced in another place in 1979 which fell through lack of time. The Government refused to give special facilities for Bills to deal with this matter. They have regarded it as something to be left to the hazards of the Private Members' Bills procedures. Although from the Government's point of view it is a useful Bill, it is entirely fortuitous that this Bill comes to this Chamber at all. The sponsor of the Bill in another place had first thought about another subject entirely, and it was only by his own choice, after coming out well in the bran tub of legislative opportunity, that he decided to choose this Bill. So I think that, having left it to the luck of the draw, so to speak, one cannot put too much stress on the Government's interest in the usefulness of this Bill. It did not seem to matter too much until now.
However, I do not want to go on picking quarrels all round the Committee. As a lone person, with noble Lords of a different view in front of one and at the back of one, it probably brings out characteristics in my temperament which are not quite so pleasant as usual. I do not want to dwell further upon
284
this. I quite understand that the local authorities would have to be consulted and that in present circumstances they would not want to take on this additional burden. But I think the idea of the local authority having the power to issue an abatement order, then a nuisance order, and if necessary a prohibition order, all dealing with local nuisance, with powers of enforcement only if there is failure or refusal to comply with the orders made, has its attractions from a theoretical point of view and it would not then be in the calendar of criminal offences in the same way as this Bill retains it. However, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert—
(" ( ) In this Act "offensive matter" means matter (other than the printed word) whose unrestricted display is offensive to the general public by reason of the manner in which it portrays or deals with or relates to violence, cruelty or horror, or sexual, faecal, urinary functions or genital organs.").
The noble Lord said: In view of the fact that this amendment is now not strictly relevant to the earlier part of Clause 1, and will have to be changed in form slightly if it is to be converted into a definition of the word "indecent", I had better not move it so that the position can be kept open.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 13, leave out from (" access ") to end of line 3 on page 2 and insert) "while that matter is displayed except premises or a part of premises having a separate access from the street—

(a) which persons under the age of 18 years are not permitted to enter while the display in question is continuing; and

(b) to which the public can gain access only by passing an adequate warning notice in the terms of subsection (6) below; and

(c) which make no display visible to persons not passing beyond the warning notice, other than the name of the business and an indication of its nature.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is almost drafting. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has had an opportunity of studying it. The wording in subsection (3), as amended in Committee in another place, seems to be unnecessarily complex. The exceptions to "public place" can be stated quite clearly by setting down three cumulative conditions, (a), (b) and (c), as in the amendment on the Marshalled List. This allows premises which would otherwise be a public place to exempt themselves, if they exclude young people from entering and allow other people to avoid offence. These conditions were recommended by the Williams Committee.
There was no discussion, either on Second Reading or in Committee, of the justification for paragraph (a) when people make payment for a display. However, there is no reason why such a situation should not be covered by the amendment proposed, provided that a warning notice is set up. It is perhaps a more orderly and tidier form of setting out this subsection. I do not think it makes any material change in the purport of the subsection, but it gets it a little clearer. I beg to move.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I have to confess that I have

285
not studied this point in great detail. I had rather imagined that it was attached to the earlier amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and would stand or fall with it. I am hopeful that my noble friend Lord Belstead may be able to express a view on it. But I am not absolutely clear how it will tie up with the very carefully worked out provisions in subsections (4), (5) and (6) in the Bill as it now stands. I should not like to disturb them, because I recollect the very detailed discussion which they were given, and a certain amount of amendment that they were given, at the Committee stage in the Commons. So I should like to hear what my noble friend has to say and, perhaps, I could then express a view to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, as to how we might proceed.
Lord Belstead: After a rather brief glance, I think that this amendment could be said to be technically defective, and we ought to have another look at it before we decide whether to agree to it.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: In those circumstances, I readily beg leave to withdraw the amendment. It is only fair that further thought should be given to it, to see whether it does what it is intended to do.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, leave out lines 12 to 14.
The noble Lord said: The question here is whether we need to include in the Bill an exemption to authorities which may display indecent matter, which is visible only from within a building occupied by the Crown or any local authority. It is not clear why this is in the Bill, and perhaps the noble Lord will be able to tell us. Subsection (4) reads:
" Nothing in this section applies in relation to any matter … (c) displayed by or with the authority of, and visible only from within a building occupied by, the Crown or any local authority ".
What is it that they want to stick up which would be exempted? I beg to move.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: The thought here is that a local authority or the Crown might allow its premises to be used for some artistic display which could be seen from outside and generally, and then there could be a charge of indecency. The thought is that public authorities of this kind should be trusted to ensure that their premises are used in a perfectly reasonable way for artistic displays, and that they ought to be protected in doing so. It is as simple as that and means exactly what it says. I imagine that this amendment was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. I think there must be a misunderstanding, because I am sure that he would be entirely in favour of the provision.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Here, again, it would be unfair to pursue the matter further now. If I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, that will give an opportunity to the prime mover and to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, to consider the position. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 27, leave out (" includes ") and insert (" means ").
The noble Lord said: The point here is that we want to have a fairly close definition and we want the definition of "matter" to be a little clearer. Subsection (5) states that "matter" includes something, but it really ought to mean anything capable of being displayed. What is the significance of "matter" including something, which suggests that it could include something else? The word "matter" should mean something and should not just include "anything capable of being displayed." I hope that that is intelligible. I beg to move.
The Earl of Halsbury: Before the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, replies, may I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the word "includes" occurs twice in subsection (5), once in line 27 and a second time in line 28. It seems to me that the amendment is defective, in so far as it alters the word "includes" to "means" in line 27, but does nothing about its receurrence in line 28. I should have thought that, for an amendment tabled as late as this has been, to ask us to take this in our stride is wrong, and I appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, to withdraw this amendment and have another look at it, before it is brought forward again at a further state of the Bill.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I cannot add very much. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, is perfectly right. The word "includes" is repeated in the next line for a specific purpose, and the two "includes" are linked to each other. If "means" is put in, instead of "includes ", the drafting will then be defective. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that he does not want to press the amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I think that there should be a further opportunity to consider this point. The only matter which can possibly be subject to the Act is matter which is capable of being displayed. It does not include anything else. The point is that "matter" must mean something which is capable of being displayed. However, there is a point to consider. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 28, leave out from (" displayed ") to (" and ") in line 29.
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to delete something which the section says is not to be included. Subsection (5) reads:
" In this section ' matter' includes anything capable of being displayed, except that it does not include an actual human body or any part thereof ".
The sponsor of the Bill in another place suggested that there was no need to include in his Bill matters that were dealt with by other legislation. The human body is excluded from this Bill because it may be covered by alternative legislation. That is the point of this amendment.
While the Bill is at it, may I ask whether there is any reason why it should not deal with the display of the human form? Again there are many technical problems with which I confess I am not in a position to deal. It seems strange that if the Bill deals with the

287
cover of a book in a shop window which could be called an indecent display it does not deal with a man and a woman in a compromising position in a shop window because that, presumably, is dealt with by some other legislation. Presumably the Vagrancy Act 1834 would deal with that situation, but I do not know.
There is a point about the exclusion of the human form if it is capable of being displayed in circumstances similar to those in which an indecent book or an indecent picture may be displayed. I understand that if a couple were indulging in sexual intercourse in a public park they could be prosecuted under one law. Whether if they did it in a shop window they could be prosecuted under the same law, I do not know. It has been suggested to me that there may be a little point worth considering here. I beg to move.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, with unerring skill has put his finger on an anomaly in the Bill. The boundary of the Bill is to deal with indecent display, not with the general subject of obscenity. The sort of activity which one might think about in this context, an activity which is to be found in particular in the northern part of this country, is the strip show. Strip shows are often to be seen in public houses and the like. The Bill is not intended to deal with that situation, though it may be that some of them are obscene and ought to be checked.
As we have already acknowledged, the general law is in disarray in this field but this Bill is not designed to try to deal with it. The author of the Bill felt that he should make plain what were the limits which this Bill was trying to deal with. That, as I understand it, is why the structure of the Bill is as it is here: it is in order to define what are its limits. My noble friend may be able to shed a little more light on this matter, but that I think is the basic position.
Lord Belstead: My advice is that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is quite right and that other legislation of various kinds, of which the noble Lord mentioned one example, would cover the kinds of eventuality which he had in mind.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in order to give my noble friend an opportunity to consider the matter further.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.8 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel The Earl of Listowel moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 32, leave out (" open ") and insert (" exposed ").
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this amendment is to remove a possibly dangerous ambiguity in the words "open to view ". The intention of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, in the Bill is to catch the covers, not the contents of books or magazines. But the contents of a book would be open to view if a customer took a book down from the bookshelves of a shop and turned over the pages. This would be literally opening the book to view, even if the only viewer was the potential purchaser and he was only looking at the printed pages. This is a very real difficulty, but I do not underestimate the difficulty of finding a satisfactory alternative wording.
If the words "exposed to view" were used instead of the words "open to view ", which is what I am suggesting in my amendment, they would make clear that the law is only concerned when some part of a book or a magazine is deliberately exposed for customers to see. This ambiguity would not be so dangerous if proceedings required the consent of the Attorney-General. But the Bill as drafted would allow proceedings to be brought by private individuals and there are some who would certainly take advantage of an opportunity of this kind.
I am not at all sure that my amendment would prevent this risk of a sort of private censorship which no one, least of all the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, would desire. But if it does not meet the point, I hope the noble Lord himself, or perhaps the Government, who have been helping him with the drafting, will attempt before the next stage of the Bill to find a form of words which would avoid what might be a dangerous ambiguity. I beg to move.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I recognise the noble Earl's great parliamentary knowledge and therefore the value of his opinion on this point. The fact is that parliamentary counsel says that either form of words—either "open to view" or "exposed to view "—would mean the same. So it really is a matter of taste as to whether your Lordships wish to make the change. I feel quite neutral about it. I shall be interested to hear whether my noble friend Lord Belstead feels that there is any risk attached to it. From such advice as I have been given, I believe that there is not.
I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that I should have felt obliged to resist the amendment on the ground that it would be far better if we did not amend the Bill at all, but for the fact that, as noble Lords will have seen, I have an amendment down in my name to correct a technical fault which was made in bringing the law in Scotland into line with the law in England. This amendment was put into the Bill at Report stage and therefore an amendment has to go into the Bill to get the law right in both countries. That being so, I would be prepared to accept the amendment which the noble Earl has moved.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I hope it will not be felt indecent by your Lordships if I add a few words on this amendment so soon after making my maiden speech. My excuse for doing so is that in the other place I served on a committee dealing with a similar Bill and thus became slightly engaged in the esoteric discussion which this kind of Bill provokes. It seems to me that your Lordships should take advantage of the mover's kindness in suggesting that the change might be made. It seems to me that the word "exposed" has a more deliberate connotation than the word "open". The word "open" suggests an accidental display whereas the word "exposed" has a rather more deliberate connotation. If your Lordships feel that too, then there is much to be said for the amendment, and in view of the feeling which has been expressed by noble Lords opposite, perhaps your Lordships will feel disposed to accept the amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I agree with what my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney has just said.

289
The sponsor of the Bill in the other place assured the Committee on 4th March 1981 (col. 123):
" I see no risk that someone who goes into a bookshop, opens a copy of a magazine with a decent cover and looks at something indecent inside the magazine will be committing an offence. Such a person would not be making a display".
I suppose this may be just a matter of semantics but the phrase "open to view" rather suggests something that is available to be looked at, whereas "exposed to view" suggests something that is openly there to see. In other words, "open" suggests opportunity but "exposed" suggests that the display is a fact. These are the fine differences between one and the other.
This point has caused concern outside. I have received a letter from a university professor on this very point. He says that he is not interested in sexy, glossy magazines but he is interested in scholarly works on Greek vases and is afraid that such works might be prosecuted. He comments:
" A scholarly work on Greek vases might well be prosecuted to the great embarrassment of reputable booksellers ".
There seems to be some doubt even in high academic quarters and it is as well that any doubts should be removed. If the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, admits that the words "open and" exposed "are mutually exchangeable, he might care to meet the representations which have been made to him and exchange one word for the other, because it will not make any substantial difference but will, for some of us, remove any shadow of doubt.
The Earl of Listowel: I was most anxious that your Lordships should have an opportunity to express opinions about this amendment because I was not myself certain whether it was suitable or not. But as all of those noble Lords who have spoken have supported the amendment, and since the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, himself has been generous enough to say he would accept this amendment even though he says it makes no difference to the Bill, I believe it would be in accordance with your Lordships' wishes if I pressed my amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 42, leave out (" 18 ") and insert (" 16 ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment covers the question about the age limit relating to permissible entry to the back of a shop. I admit straight away that the Williams Report is against the lower age but again it is a matter of judgment, in the light of' present circumstances, whether the age should be 18 or something lower. In support of reducing the age from 18 to 16 I would advance the argument that 16 is the age of consent, and also it is the age above which a marriage may be lawful. I am advised that it is more difficult to distinguish between persons aged 17 and 18 than it is to distinguish between persons aged 15 and 16.
I could not be certain about that argument but, to take an extreme example, it is conceivable that a girl of 17 might go into a shop wearing a wedding ring and be told by the shopkeeper when she asks to go into the back of the shop, "I do not think you are 18. Are you 18? ". She might reply, "No, but I am married and I am the mother of a small child, so I
290
know all about it and please may I go into the back of the shop to see what there is to see? "is the shopkeeper then to say, "Run away, little girl. This is not fit for you to see. We do not want you to be corrupted by looking at this hard porn. In any case the law is against it so I cannot admit you to the back of the shop "?
That example may be a little far-fetched but there are quite a number of girls around these days who are married and become mothers before the age of 18. The relevant passage in the Williams Report is on page 125, paragraph 939, and noble Lords can read that for themselves. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked me to move this amendment on his behalf and therefore I beg to do so.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: We must thank the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, once again for moving an amendment in the absence of its progenitor and for the very able way in which he did so; the example he gave of a 17-year-old marriea mother was a good one. Here again we are dealing with a matter of judgment. If one fixes the age at 18, then there may be some young men or girls of 17 or even 16 who will go into a shop, and the shopkeeper will find it very difficult to tell what age they are. Some young people look quite grown up. On the other hand, if one sets the age at 16 some children aged 14 or 13 may go into a shop. The noble Lord was good enough to give me part of the case against the advice given in the Williams Report that 18 was a good age to set—I would have thought that 18 was an appropriate age. I understand that the working party on vagrancy also recommended that 18 was the age that should be set, recognising that there is bound to be a bracket and nobody can tell absolutely what age a person is.
If one sets the age limit at 18 one at least ensures that younger boys and girls—if one can call them such at that age—are not freely mixing with hard porn of the kind we particularly want to keep them away from, and that the Bill therefore serves its purpose. There cannot be anything absolute about this, but I believe it would be a mistake to bring down the age to as low as 16. I hope that your Lordships will feel that it is better to leave the age limit at 18, knowing that in practice there will inevitably he a certain amount of flexibility in the interpretation of the age limit.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: The arguments will go down on paper in the Official Report and they will be available to the noble Earl whose amendment it is. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Powers of arrest, seizure and entry]:
8.20 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 14, leave out from (" Act ") to end of line 15.
The noble Lord said: This amendment proposes to delete the words, "or in an attempt to commit such an offence ". I doubt whether this is appropriate to this subsection:
" A constable may seize any article which he has reasonable grounds for believing to be or to contain indecent matter and

291
to have been used in the commission of an offence under this Act or in an attempt to commit such an offence".
How does a person attempt to commit an offence under this clause? He is not being charged with handling pornography. There is no forbidden material in his hands. If it were, that is taken care of by the Obscene Publications Act or something else, but here is a person whose offence is putting something on display. How can it be attempting to put something on display in a certain part of the shop? I fail to understand the meaning of these words in terms of actual experience. Can the noble Lord give an example of the right of a constable to have reasonable grounds for believing that the article contains indecent matter that is going to be used in an attempt to commit an offence? I am puzzled about that, but I hope that I may be enlightened. I beg to move.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I would suspect that this form of structure is fairly common in defining an offence of any kind, actually committing the offence or attempting to commit it, but how it applies in this particular case I would suggest is that if a shopkeeper was in the process of dressing his shop window with indecent material of this kind that would be attempting to make a display of the kind which is to be made illegal under this clause, and if a constable saw him doing this and entered the shop to take action against him, to charge him, he would then charge him with the attempt to commit the offence because the shopkeeper would not have completed his offence; he would only be in the process of starting to do it. That is the kind of action. I agree that it would not happen very often that the constable would be there at that critical moment and see the shopkeeper starting to dress the window but it could happen, and, because it could, the clause has been drafted in this way in order to cater for it.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I share the concern of my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby about the appropriateness of an attempt occurring in this type of offence. I found him very persuasive when he suggested that the offence was either committed or not committed and that an attempt to commit was hardly appropriate in this particular context. I was not entirely convinced by the answer and I hope that my noble friend will not be easily deterred from pressing his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether I might assist. As always the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, gave a very clear exposition of a point of view with regard to attempt, but I would say to my noble friend Lord Houghton—who I know will forgive me for addressing him again and this time with considerable affection, as I always do—an attempt of course could be made in these circumstances. A constable is standing opposite a shop; the display, which is quite obviously an indecent one, has been nine-tenths put up. What is put up in fact is not at that moment indecent in regard to the nine-tenths but in the hands of the shopkeeper, or whoever it might be, there is the tenth part of this exhibition, which is just about to be put up and which makes it thoroughly indecent. Does the police constable have to wait in front of a
292
crowd of people looking at the shop, or passers-by, while the shopkeeper puts up the one-tenth in order to make it thoroughly indecent so that the offence is committed, or is it obvious, because he is trying to put it up, that the attempt is about to be committed? Is it not right that the police constable should be able to seize the article—which is the right that is given under this clause? I think that is possibly an example which I might give to the Committee of what these words attempt to cover.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am grateful to my noble friend for his helpful remarks and forgive him much. However, I am still not convinced that the example that he has given would be one in which the constable should enter the shop and say, "I see you have put two books up there which look very dicey to me. Have you any more like those which you are going to stick up?" The shopkeeper will say, "No, that is it" and the police constable will say "Well, I had better have a look round and see. What is in this box here? Were you thinking of putting those up?" "No, constable ", the shopkeeper will say, and the constable will say "Don't lie, you were just going to put these up. I am going to exercise my right to seize these books because I believe they were going to be used in an attempt to commit an offence ".
Seriously, we are dealing with a different kind of situation from the one where the attempt to commit an offence is common form in the Bills concerned. This is different and it is new, and I think one has to deal with the powers of the police with great care. This is not censorship. This is not dealing with obscenity; this is dealing with indecent display. The offence is to display to public view matters which they might regard as indecent and offensive. He is absolutely in the clear if he puts what he has got beyond the door with a notice prominently displayed, as the Bill provides. So this is a very fine point indeed, as to whether he is attempting to commit an offence, whether certain material was about to be used to commit an offence. The powers of the police are quite sufficient, I suggest, here without allowing a constable to throw his weight about to this extent. Although it might be a little inconvenient for the constable to wait until he has seen whether the shopkeeper was going to put up any more material in the window which might in cumulative form amount to an indecent display, I think it is better to wait until he sees more obvious signs that an offence has been committed or is being committed before we give him the right to go into the shop and seize material.
Very shortly we are coming to the question of forfeiture. I am very doubtful indeed whether the powers of the police should be extended a single inch beyond what is really necessary to enforce the law. I cannot believe that these words have any convincing relevance to the situation. I do beg of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, to give further thought to this. I know he is a reasonable man and does not want this Bill to go any further than to deal with the narrow point the Bill is intended to cover. I will, therefore, beg leave—
Lord Nugent of Guildford: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, I should like to say a further word. I regard this as very marginal, and I

293
think we all do; it is a very fine point indeed. Bearing in mind the argument the noble Lord has just very effectively advanced, that if the constable waited a few more minutes the attempt would turn into reality, it really does seem that the case for including the attempted offence as part of the offence is not very justified when we are dealing with indecent display. So I feel that it would be right that I should advise your Lordships that this is not going to affect the strength of the Bill and the character of the Bill. The noble Lord has made a fair point, and if the noble Lord wishes to press his amendment I would advise your Lordships to accept it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 26, at end insert—
(" ( ) Proceedings for an offence under this Act shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of a police officer of or above the rank of Superintendent.").
The noble Lord said: We now come to the question of proceedings. I beg to move to insert the words on the Marshalled List. This question of the right of prosecution was dealt with at considerable length by the Williams Committee. They came down against central control of prosecutions; that is, against the Director of Public Prosecutions being the sole authority to sanction proceedings. They recommended restricting the institution of proceedings to the ordinary police prosecuting machinery. Their recommendations are on page 129 of their report. But they were not—I repeat not—in favour of allowing individuals to invoke the law.
The offence under this Bill is not the committing of some breach of the law, like assault, which can be tried on evidence of the facts; it is an offence depending upon the varying views of what is indecent or offensive. It was on this part of the 1973 Bill, introduced by the Government of the day, that the Labour Opposition took such a strong line against private prosecutions. In fact I can say that the Shadow Cabinet at the time had decided to vote against the Third Reading of that Bill if it still contained, as it seemed likely it would, the right of private prosecution. As it turned out, the Bill fell in 1973 because of the General Election in 1974. The Labour Home Secretary, Mr. Roy Jenkins, set his face firmly against the reintroduction of that Bill in its original form.
I know that it can be argued that the right of private prosecution exists in the Obscene Publications Act 1959, but if the Committee wish to see the chaos in the list of statutes in which the right of prosecution is in different hands they will read the list on page 185 of the Williams Report. We did not include the right of individual prosecution at the time of the Protection of Children Act 1978. The Theatres Act 1968 reserved prosecution, at least in some important sections of the Bill, to the Director of Public Prosecutions. So we have not really given an open opportunity to private prosecution for a very long time. I think it is a retrograde step to revert to the provisions of the 1959 Act, which is outdated and unworkable and virtually a dead letter at the present time.
I know that the matter was debated in the Committee
294
in another place, and Mr. Silkin made a very strong case there against the right of private prosecution. The Minister of State, Mr. Mayhew, said, at col. 156 of the Committee proceedings of 11th March:
" For my part I think that the principle is this, that the criminal prosecution is in essence an action of a special type in the Queen's courts whereby one person complains to the representatives of the Queen, who are the judges, magistrates and so on, that a breach has occurred of the Queen's law, and calls for a remedy in the shape of a criminal penalty.".
I stress the fact that in the Williams Report they argued very strongly against allowing the private citizen to exercise his own judgment and his own opinion as to what is an indecent display and to undertake a private prosecution. He can put a trader on the rack. He can expose him to public notice in an unfavourable light. He may even cause his business serious loss, and all because somebody is offended by what he sees in a shop window. Moreover, in many cases the private prosecution will be undertaken by somebody who is encouraged and financed by some moral vigilante organisation that conceives it to be its duty to pursue people wherever this alleged evil may arise.
This is a very important matter, probably much more important than many of the earlier amendments that we have already considered. I hope that the viewpoint of the Minister of State, as expressed in Committee in another place, will not prevail here. We as a House have a constitutional duty to safeguard the position and the rights of the citizen. If the citizen is to prosecute for an offence which is against the community—not against himself, but against the community—he is claiming to speak for others, not only for himself. An indecent display is not indecent merely because he personally thinks so; he must establish that it was indecent to many other viewers as well.
The amendment is a reasonable compromise. I do not believe that the right of prosecution should rest with the Director of Public Prosecutions or with the Attorney-General. It rests with the Attorney-General in the case of the Theatres Act and the Director of Public Prosecutions in the case of the Protection of Children Act. As far as I can trace, the only right of private prosecution in this particular field goes back to 1959 under the Obscene Publications Act. There were, of course, some private prosecutions, and some extremely costly ones, undertaken under the Obscene Publications Act.
Therefore, I attach great importance to this amendment and I sincerely hope that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, will give it the most urgent consideration. I draw his attention especially to paragraph 9.49 on page 129 of the Williams Report concerning whether it is in the public interest of people of a certain kind to be able to use the courts for the purposes of pursuing their own unrepresentative view of offensiveness, particularly as the offence of which they are complaining will not be against them in particular, and so on.
I do not know what to do about this amendment. I am moving it at the moment and hope that there will be some response to it. However, I do not think that the Committee should allow the Bill to stand unamended in this extremely important respect.
Lord Monson: I should like to support the amendment for the following reason. During the mid and

295
late 1960s and early 1970s the pendulum swung much too far in favour of permissiveness, towards an almost intolerant permissiveness, if that is not rather self-contradictory. Now in the 1980s the pendulum, as always happens, is swinging back this time too far, I feel, in the direction of an almost intolerant puritanism. I think that this amendment would provide a reasonable safeguard for the middle ground, for the happy medium. For that reason I hope that the Committee will give it some earnest consideration.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I also would like to add a few words in support of the amendment. I was on the joint parliamentary committee which decided to abolish the role of the Lord Chamberlain as censor. There was great concern among theatre managers at that time that the consequences of the abolition of the role of the Lord Chamberlain would be that a series of private prosecutions would be launched and that they would not know where they were—anything could happen to anybody, anywhere. No one knew when a show went on the road whether if in this, that or the other town it might suddenly be stopped. It was then decided, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has said, that no prosecution should be launched without the fiat of the Attorney-General.
If that had not been done I think that the consequences of the abolition of the role of censorship by the Lord Chamberlain would have been absolutely disastrous. The consequence would have been that private prosecutions undoubtedly would have been launched throughout the country. I foresee that, without some such minimal protection as proposed by my noble friend, something similar would happen here. It seems to me that ordinary booksellers throughout the country would be placed in a position of gross uncertainty, a position verging on the impossible. I therefore echo my noble friend's words and hope that this amendment will be treated seriously and, if possible, accepted.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that this is an important amendment, and of course it did receive a great deal of attention in the debates in another place which I have studied in the same way as the noble Lord has. We start from the position that the law now allows private prosecutions. Therefore, Lord Houghton's amendment would remove from private citizens a right that they have now. Let me remind the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that this is a right which the private citizen has at present and I would suggest that there should be a very strong case indeed before we take it away from him.
The case has been put eloquently by noble Lords on the other side about the danger that there might be to bookshops and newsagents if the right of private prosecution remains. We are talking here, of course, about public display in the context of this particular Bill where a certain machinery has been defined in the Bill whereby a pornographic display must be confined to the rear part of a shop with a suitable warning notice and so on. It is a very narrow context.
I make the point particularly cogently to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that the Williams Report in
296
this context is talking about the offence of obscenity—a very much wider subject. In particular, it is talking about it in the context of limitations on expression, artistic, literary, dramatic, and so on. It is essentially in the field where legal action becomes censorship. That has no element whatever in this field of public display. That is the difference, I would suggest, as regards private prosecution in this particular field where it now exists—and I make this point very strongly.
We are required here to see that we have the right balance as regards the rights of the private citizen. The private citizen is just as entitled to be able to walk down the street without seeing disgusting displays in shop windows as the other private citizen is entitled to sell his wares in a shop. We are concerned with the balance, and the rights of the private citizen are not all on one side.
The point which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, very effectviely made with his excellent command of dialectic, that there is a danger of persecution by morally motivated groups who can finance some private citizen to put up a private prosecution, may be one side of the matter, although there are none that I know of that have any great finance behind them. However, we are looking at the picture where the finance, if we are talking about finance, is on the other side. We all know jolly well the size of these publications; the millions that are sold every month; the huge sums of money that are being made out of pornography; the continuous effort to push out its boundaries to find new markets among children and to use material which becomes ever more reprehensible. The threat, if there is one, is not from the private citizen who is saying "I don't like this display; I shall take action against it ". Most private citizens who do that will jolly well have to finance it themselves, and there are not very many who have the courage or the money to do it. So the risks are not very great and the issues at stake are not very great.
I should have thought that the balance is about right in retaining, and I stress the point—and this should appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who, heaven knows, is a valiant warrior in the cause of the rights of the private citizen—the existing rights of private citizens to protect themselves from the pollution of the town or city in which they live. I should have thought that if we retain this particular right in the Bill and do not take it away from the private citizen, the balance would be about right.
Therefore, I most earnestly hope that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—who I know, despite his powerful dialectic attacks on a particular subject, is very fair-minded at the end of the day—will see that there is a powerful case on the other side too, and that there really is no justification for taking away this particular right in this particular narrow context. I can only suppose that that was the reason that right honourable and honourable gentlemen in another place agreed that it should stay in, because they must have been at least as aware as the noble Lord of the history of this affair.
Lord Mishcon: I intervene only in order that I can emphasise an argument that was, in fact, before the Committee in another place but which has not been advanced this evening. I mention it only so that it

297
can be considered by the Committee, and by my noble friend. I have a great deal of sympathy with the point that there can be oppressive prosecutions brought by private individuals who have some rather weird ideas about what is decent and what is indecent. I accept that completely.
However, one of the things that influenced the Committee in another place was, indeed, a point that was advanced in argument by the mover of the Bill, who of course, was the honourable Member, Mr. Sainsbury. He referred to the position which the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure had reported, and which made major recommendations in regard to private prosecutions. If the Committee will permit me—and it will take only a moment or so—I should like to read its recommendation, which is to be found at paragraph 715 of its report. It says:
" We therefore recommend that if a private citizen wishes to initiate a prosecution, he should apply in the first instance to the Crown Prosecutor ".
In parenthesis, that is a new idea that was advanced by the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure. It goes on:
" If the latter is satisfied about the case, applying the same criteria as he would apply for any other prosecution, he should take the case on. If he is not, and the private citizen, after explanation, still wishes to proceed, the latter should be able to make an application for leave to commence proceedings to a magistrates' court; that is, to at least two justices attended by a clerk ".
It is known, although I believe that no one anticipates that there will be Government action on the Royal Commission's report very soon, that these matters are under consideration, and under pretty urgent consideration.
However much one may sympathise with the view put forward by my noble friend Lord Houghton—and I certainly sympathise with him in this amendment—I think that it would be rather extraordinary if, in a Private Member's Bill, we excluded private prosecution before major legislation comes forward to Parliament dealing with the whole question of private prosecutions and how they should be dealt with. It is in those circumstances that I would personally recommend to the Committee that to exclude private prosecutions in this Bill would be rather extraordinary in view of the fact that the whole matter is under consideration.
Lord Spens: Before the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, decides what to do, I am—as I think all noble Lords know—a very keen supporter of the very small businessman and I must draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that very small newsagents generally carry some of this material in their shops. They probably make their profits by being able to sell this material. The small village shop certainly does not have the space to produce what is described in Clause 1 (3)(b) as:
" a shop or any part of a shop to which the public can only gain access by passing beyond an adequate warning notice ".
There is probably only one counter in the shop. This material is displayed inside the shop, but it is not behind an adequate warning notice. I am afraid that if we wait for the Government to act on the Royal Commission's proposals, we shall probably have to wait for three or four years, and during that time a large number of these small village stationers may be put out of business unless we can protect them by
298
making sure that this type of prosecution is not brought against them. Therefore, I very strongly support this amendment.
Lord Swinfen: In answer to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, on the small village shop, surely once this Bill becomes law, if the proprietors of the magazines that are sold in the small village shop want their magazines sold in those shops, they will produce inoffensive front covers so that the proprietors of the shops will not be committing an offence and will, therefore, continue to hold their magazines within their stocks.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said that the right of private prosecution already exists. But what he did not tell the Committee is under what statute that right exists. Unless I am very much mistaken, he was relying on the Vagrancy Act 1834. I am advised that one could rely on the Vagrancy Act for almost anything in this Bill. Indeed, the Vagrancy Act was passed mostly in order to deal with the unruly behaviour of the soldiery returning from the Napoleonic wars and, indeed, anything went under that Act. However, we have chosen to legislate afresh—and we are doing so today—on matters that might be covered by the obsolete Vagrancy Act, because we want to update the law and provide something at which Parliament can look afresh.
Therefore, if I am right in assuming that no right of private prosecution exists anywhere in this field except in the Vagrancy Act 1834, I suggest that the noble Lord is not relying on anything very strong. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to page 185 of the Williams Report. There, it sets out the authority for prosecution in a varied field. It says:
" Indecent display provisions. None of the 19th century enactments restricts the right of private individuals to institute proceedings for an offence ".
But what are those enactments? Is the noble Lord relying on any of them, or is he relying on the common law? When we have dealt with specific matters in recent years—such as the Theatres Act, the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act, customs Acts, the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act, the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act, the Protection of Children Act—we have not allowed the right of individual prosecution. In these days of high pressure groups with a strong mission in life many of which think evil of anyone who does not agree with their own point of view—and I have had wide experience of societies in this field and know how strong can be their hostility towards those who do not agree with them; this is not only in the social field, either—and, bearing in mind that this kind of pursuit of alleged delinquency can become a form of persecution or blackmail, we have to be careful before leaving the private citizen, who may be egged on by somebody else, financed by somebody else, to embark on a private prosecution, a test case. That kind of thing we have to beware of. It is the responsibility of other people to decide a matter of that kind.
The Earl of Halsbury: I am feeling confused by what the noble Lord has been saying. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, can come to my rescue here. I have always believed that the right of insisting that the

299
law, if broken, should be defended was a common law right inherent in the subject. It does not vest in any particular statute. I do not know whether the noble Lord can help me?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: We shall probably deal with that point in a moment. What I am stressing is that in previous Acts in this field we have not left the right of private prosecution in the hands of the ordinary citizen. We have deliberately taken it out of the hands of the ordinary citizen. Why have we done that, and why did we do it for the Protection of Children Act and the Theatres Act? Why did we take the right of private prosecution away from the citizen, and in this Bill propose to retain it? This is the important point.
I am beginning to see why it is that some reputable retailers in the publishing world have represented to me that there should be a moratorium on private prosecutions, if that is what Parliament decides, for long enough to enable the retailer to put his house in order. The idea that he can put innocuous covers on otherwise indecent display covers is not, I suggest, an easy one to accomplish. After all, he has to sell his books and he has not normally the means to put fresh covers on books that have already been delivered to him.
Lord Swinfen: I was not suggesting that the retailers should put covers on the books but the producer of the magazine, the publisher.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: That is a perfectly valid suggestion, but that is on future deliveries. He may already have material in his possession. It is not all the girlie magazines and the sexy glossies that are involved here. There are other indecent displays too. There is point in some delay to enable people to put their shop in order. Indeed, in a later amendment I plead for an extension of the period between the passing of the Act and the date upon which it will come into operation from three months to six months. It strikes me as relevant to our consideration here that this chain of booksellers should expressly put it to me that it is desirable that the right of private prosecution should not be let loose upon us right from the time the Bill is passed.
I do not think that the noble Lords who have intervened so far understand what the pressures are. The pressures that have produced this Bill are the pressures which will pursue those who are alleged to be in default of its provisions. There is a campaign going on here in just the same way that there was a campaign at the time of the Protection of Children Bill. We legislated in 1978 by scare, by panic, and from that Bill since 1978 less than 30 prosecutions have taken place, which shows how big a scare it was. We have scarcely heard any more about it since the Bill was passed. Here is a fresh opportunity for that kind of campaign to continue.
I am sorry to express myself in these terms but they are there, and they cannot be ignored. I sincerely hope that they do not use this opportunity of picking out people. In many cases of course you do not need in those circumstances to prosecute. All you need do is to go into the shop and say, "I find this indecent, and if you don't take it out I shall launch a prosecution
300
against you ". The bookseller says, "I don't want to get into trouble. I don't want my name in the papers. I don't want anybody to come in here and seize my goods. I will take it out immediately ". Are we going to put up with that kind of thing? Talk about liberty in these circumstances!
I beg the noble Lord to consider what we are being asked to do. We are being asked to do something in this Bill that this House has not done before on any of these questions since I came into the place eight years ago. We are advancing our views upon the basic right of citizens to exercise their right of going to the courts to get redress not on a personal grievance but on behalf of the community, of which they may be quite unrepresentative.
I come now to my noble friend Lord Mishcon. I accept what he has said, but are we prepared to put the right of private prosecution in this Bill while waiting for the implementation of recommendations of a Royal Commission on this subject, on which there is no early prospect of action being taken? I do not agree with him that it is appropriate to leave the right of private prosecution in the Bill, because later that will be converted into a different right if the recommendations of the Royal Commission are implemented. I do not think that is the way to do it.
If the recommendations of the Royal Commission are implemented, then it seems to me that one has an entirely new situation and a new status and new safeguards given to private prosecutions. In those circumstances one might legislate to incorporate in a number of existing statutes, including this one and including others that have gone before, the new form of the citizen taking proceedings in the community's interests, and not leave it to the caprice of an individual to do it in the circumstances in which they can. So I am sorry to say that I am not convinced at all on what is a very grave issue indeed. What does one do in a Chamber in which there are less than a dozen people with an important matter of this kind? I wait for some help, and I am not prepared to let it go by default.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord has asked a question as to the course he should take on a matter about which there is clearly a difference of opinion. Would he see fit to look again at the amendment before Report? I was a little surprised to see that the right to bring a prosecution would be restricted under the amendment to a police officer of or above the rank of superintendent. I am advised that the Government do not know any precedent for a provision of that kind, and although I admit that I have not consulted the police, it would surprise me if that provision were not seen as an unjustifiably rigid requirement. On those grounds the noble Lord may be prepared to look at the terms of the amendment again and not press it now. I do not think that is an unreasonable request for me to make, and he may consider it a sensible course to take.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: The noble Lord has scored a goal. It may be that the amendment is defective in specifying an officer of the rank of superintendent or above. That was, so to speak, an off-the-cuff judgment as to who might do it. I did not want to put it in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and it seemed unsuitable to raise it to

301
the level of chief constable. The Williams Report referred to "normal police procedures" or some such phrase, which presumably would have left it in the hands of a constable in certain circumstances if he was advised by his superior officers that it was a suitable matter for a police prosecution. So long as the right of prosecution is removed from the citizen—however worthy or however mischievous—and goes into the hands of a public authority, which is the police, I should be very willing to consider the matter along those lines. Therefore, I readily accede to the suggestion of the Minister to look at it between now and Report, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 26, at end insert—
(" ( ) Unless articles seized under the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) above are made the subject of charges of offences under this Act within twenty-one days of the date of seizure, they shall be returned within seven days to the premises from which they were removed.").
The noble Lord said: This is another very important matter, that of forfeiture. The provisions for seizure and forfeiture under the Protection of Children Act 1978 were very stringent indeed because the whole point of that Act was that certain material was of itself, by being in existence, to be banned, to be forfeited, not to be put in circulation and so on. It was the material's existence which was the offence, not where it went; it was bad and should be banned because it was bad stuff. That was the argument behind the stringent forfeiture provisions in the 1978 Act.
But now we are dealing with an entirely different situation. The right of forfeiture really should not exist under this measure at all. The right of seizure, yes—because the justification for giving the police conditional powers of search and entry and their authority to remove restrictive material is the need to produce evidence in any proceedings subsequently taken—but there is no justification for these goods to be kept indefinitely by the police without any charge being laid. Clearly the police could retain the evidence, provided that the period is reasonable, until they had decided to make a charge of an offence. But under the provisions of seizure and forfeiture incorporated in other Acts of Parliament the police can seize, take away and retain, and yet bring no charges week after week after week. It is left to the citizen to apply to the magistrates for an order for the return of his goods; and all of that appears in the newspapers. The magistrates could refuse to grant an order for return. They could make an order for forfeiture.
But the goods seized under this Bill will not be in that category. It is not a raid for obscenity. That would take place, if it took place at all, under a different statute altogether. What the shopkeeper has is lawful material which becomes subject to this Bill if it is displayed in such a way that the public nuisance factor arises. I ask the Committee to bear in mind that we are dealing here with the question of public nuisance, not the question of obscenity. So material in the front shop would be lawful if it was in the back shop. It is all a question of where the goods are
302
displayed. As the Williams Report says in paragraph 9.46:
" it is not the material itself which offends against the law but only its mode of sale ",
and display.
I believe that there can be no grounds whatever for forfeiture under the Bill. That is why I seek to provide a reasonable period after seizure for the police to decide whether they are to make a charge of an offence. I hope the Committee is fully aware of this important point. We cannot allow goods to be seized and retained indefinitely without charges being made. Still less can we agree to any forfeiture of goods that are taken, in particular if no charge is subsequently made, and so I hope that the Committee will be persuaded to adopt the amendment, which I think is a very reasonable one.
However, the period that I propose might be in need of alteration. Perhaps it should be 21 days or some other number of days; there might be a question as to whether or not the stipulated period is appropriate. But certainly I want to overcome the possibility that goods seized may be retained, and still less shall they be forfeited where no charge is being made against the person. If a charge is made against him, it may well be that the magistrates will be able to make an order for forfeiture of the materials seized and made the subject of the offence, though I am not sure about this. In those circumstances the magistrates might decide that, as part of the penalty, the goods seized should be retained; but that is a legal point with which I am not qualified to deal. However the main issue must be very clear to the Committee, and I beg to move.
The Earl of Halsbury: Before the noble Lord sits down will he explain the reference in the amendment to seven days—within seven days of what starting day? Does it mean by the 28th day, there having been no prosecution?—because if that is what it means, it does not say so.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: What I intend it to mean is that, if no charge has been made within 21 days of seizure, the goods must be returned from whence they came within seven days of the expiry of the 21 days. So it is the 28th day, as the noble Earl said. It means that there are seven days in which to return the goods after the lawful retention for up to three weeks.
The Earl of Halsbury: I must leave for another occasion the question of whether the amendment says what it means.
Lord Monson: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has made out a good case for the amendment, though I agree that the wording is rather unclear, as has been indicated by my noble friend. I believe that the amendment would help to protect the rights of innocent individuals; I say "innocent" because if they were not innocent they would of course have been prosecuted. I have pleasure in supporting the amendment.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I think that there is some misunderstanding in the noble Lord's mind. This is not at all a question of forfeiture. It is simply the removal of some of the material sufficient for purposes

303
of evidence; that is all. There is no question of forfeiture. The police need to retain the material for a reasonable period in order to bring the case. No doubt my noble friend will be able to tell the Committee for how long the police might need it, but I would very much doubt whether the processes of the law could be completed within 21 days. We are not here dealing with forfeiture. The noble Lord has misunderstood the purpose of the clause. That would have to be dealt with under a completely different Act. This is simply to gather the necessary evidence in order to bring the charge of indecent display if the constable thinks that such a charge lies; and, of course, if the police retained the goods for an unreasonable period there would indeed be a legal remedy for the shopkeeper to take against the police.
So, really, there is a misunderstanding here. I suspect that my noble friend will say that it would be better not to put a term of days or weeks on the period for which the police might hold this material, but if one had to be put on then, of course, it would have to be a good deal longer than this. But the major point that the noble Lord I think had not taken on board—I hope he has now— is that this is not a question of forfeiture; this is simply a matter of gathering the evidence necessary to bring a charge.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am a little perplexed about this. It is true that the Bill does not provide for retention or forfeiture as the Protection of Children Act did. If I am assured that when goods are seized, and when that seizure is not followed by a charge against the person complained of, they will he returned to him after a reasonable period, I think we come nearer to agreement. The question is: How long would be a reasonable period? I have known of cases where booksellers have lost half their stock and not been able to replace it because of the exposed position they were in, with a possible charge pending against them. I will ask leave to withdraw the amendment at the moment, and see whether I can get some greater reassurance than the noble Lord is able to give me on this matter.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: If the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him, before he withdraws his amendment we might ask my noble friend whether he will confirm with much greater authority than I have that I have given the noble Lord a correct version of the law, so that he might then be completely reassured.
Lord Belstead: My advice on this amendment is that the power of seizure afforded to the police by subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 2 applies only to an article which a constable has reasonable grounds for believing to have been used for the commission of an offence. It applies, therefore, only to an article which is believed to be indecent and to have been publicly displayed within the meaning of the Bill, and in most cases, therefore, a single item, or only an item or two, would be seized. That is not exactly, I think, the same as my noble friend Lord Nugent said, but where my noble friend and I certainly meet in giving the same advice to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is in saying that what this certainly does not mean is the sort of situation which I know the noble Lord, Lord Houghton,
304
fears—where, under the Obscene Publications Act, there are seizure and forfeiture provisions, the seizure involving thousands and thousands of pounds worth of goods. Nothing of that kind could conceivably happen, I think, under this particular provision in the Bill. Therefore, I think substantially, if I may say so with respect, the advice which my noble friend Lord Nugent gave in reply to this amendment was correct.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: It may be that the whole case therefore rests upon the efficiency and diligence of the police. If they take anything away and take a long time before bringing a charge, then presumably the goods remain in their hands while they are either considering the matter or just shilly-shallying. Then it may become a case for the citizen to try to get redress by some means to recover his property because the police are doing nothing about it except sitting on it. I am not sure that that is a very satisfactory position in which to put a citizen. There is a lot of unfavourable publicity given to this kind of thing, and many innocent people, I am quite sure, have been very badly treated under the existing legislation.
I do not want to go into details on this. There is wide variation between one police area and another on how the police look at some of the alleged offences against existing legislation. Statistics will prove that. If one goes into the matter one can see where prosecutions have occurred and where raids have taken place in one police area to a much larger extent than anywhere else in the country. One has to spare the citizen from this strange behaviour of certain police authorities which seem to think that they have a special mission to be very active in this particular field. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and will take further advice on it. This is regarded as a very important matter by those in the business.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Penalties]:
9.27 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, line 6, leave out (" two years ") and insert (" twelve months").
The noble Lord said: This is the question of penalties. I know that it can be suggested that in bad cases of persistent offences one should have a rod in pickle, so to speak; but we are trying to keep people out of prison and it seems to me that 12 months' imprisonment is enough. When one looks at the comparative degrees of punishment given under our different Acts of Parliament, one realises the great variety of social judgments existing in our laws today. I do not know whether there is any special significance attaching to two years or whether there is something unsuitable about 12 months.
I should have thought that, with financial penalties, it would be possible to check abuses or that to send somebody to prison for 12 months might be a salutary warning that this could not go on. I hate to think of our prisons being occupied by a few booksellers who had put a rather glossy magazine in their window and were treated as if they had picked somebody's pocket

305
or had run somebody down while drunken driving. This is not a matter of life and death in the community; although, if we set out to stop something, we want to achieve that purpose. I would ask noble Lords to consider whether 12 months would be enough to achieve that purpose even in relatively bad cases. I beg to move.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: These punishments have been debated and approved in another place. I would not regard myself as an authority on what is the correct gradation of punishments for an offence of this kind. I should have thought that it would have been extremely rare that there would be imprisonment ever awarded for such cases, that fines would normally be sufficient and that it would be only where there was the most persistent, flagrant and continuing breaches that more than the monetary penalty would be considered. Whether two years is more correct than one year I would think is a matter for judgment and something on which I should like to hear my noble friend before we conclude this debate; but I see that it is related to some extent to the Obscene Publications Act which has a maximum penalty of three years. I suppose that the two years' maximum was fixed in relation to that. I would think it very rare indeed that the punishment of imprisonment would be inflicted at all and certainly a punishment of two years would be extremely exceptional.
Lord Belstead: It is worth noting that the working party on vagrancy and street offences which reported in 1976 recommended that this would be an appropriate maximum penalty. I underline my noble friend's remarks. This is a maximum penalty that we are talking about. I speak as a non-lawyer, but I apprehend that the courts take the view in these cases that they should be dealt with summarily and custody would not enter into it at all. What do you do if somebody continually breaks the law in this way? I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has a view on this matter, but I would have thought it was reasonable to have in reserve the maximum penalty which incidentally the working party in 1976 recommended as being appropriate.
Lord Mishcon: I must respond to such a courteous invitation but reply to the courtesy with brevity. There would possibly be cases not only of repetition but where huge profits were shown to have been made and therefore where the maximum fine was no deterrent. It may be sensible to have in reserve a prison sentence which is a real deterrent to cover such as case which I accept with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and the noble Lord the Minister would be an exception. But exceptions can arise. Many of us who are very troubled by what is happening in places like Soho at the moment would feel that a very severe deterrent in some major cases—not the average ones—is necessary.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I suppose an argument could made out in really bad cases that we could send them down for five years. But I will not press that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and I shall consider the matter further.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendments Nos. 14 to 17:
Page 4, line 10, leave out (" imprisonment for a term not exceeding 60 days or ");
Page 4, line 11, leave out (" or both ");
Page 4, line 13, leave out (" imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or ");
Page 4, line 15, leave out (" or both ").
The noble Lord said: These amendments seek to bring the penalty provisions relating to Scotland into line with those relating to England and Wales by deleting the option of imprisonment on summary conviction in Scotland. The fact is, as noble Lords will recollect from reading Hansard of another place, that an amendment was made on Report stage there and, through some oversight, the Scottish position was not catered for in the amendment made. Therefore, it falls to us to make the amendments now. I do not think that I need trouble the Committee with the details. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: It was put to my noble friend Lord Nugent by the Government, that it would be highly desirable to do this in the cause of keeping the laws of Scotland and England in line on this particular matter, they having got out of line for the reason that my noble friend has explained. We approached my noble friend and he agreed to put the amendments down. They went down a little late, the day before yesterday. I am afraid that I am entirely to blame for that and not my noble friend.
The effect of the amendments is to reduce the amount of penalty in these cases in Scotland. In the light of the discussion that we had on the previous amendment, I thought it was right to point that out as well.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Does this mean that the Scots can do it more cheaply than the English? Is this another grievance—England against Scotland again, or are the Scots more enlightened people than we are?
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I would say that they have a colder climate, but the answer to the noble Lord is that the effect of these amendments would be to bring us to the same level.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.]
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Short title, repeal, extent and commencement]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 4, line 41, leave out ("three") and insert ("six").
The noble Lord said: This is the point I referred to earlier, namely, that the Bill provides for these provisions to become operative three months after the Royal Assent. This amendment asks for that period to be extended to six months after the Royal Assent, for the reasons I gave—that in a number of cases physical changes will be necessary within the selling space of shops. Work may need to be done; there will be notices to be obtained and stuck up which an earlier clause in the Bill provides for—this warning notice, of kind a "Bo Peep" notice, has to go up. A partition may have to go up and there may need to be a cubicle to give privacy for those who are asked to produce

307
their birth certificates: anything may be needed really to implement this Act, and I am asking for six months to do it in instead of three months. The world will not come to an end, with all the delays that have taken place, the hazards of the Private Members' Bills procedure, the Government not giving a damn. Now that we have got the Bill there is no reason why, to start off with, one should begin to harry the shopkeeper to get his notice up, while builders start charging exorbitant prices for erecting partitions, and so on. I think six months is very reasonable indeed and that it might easily be made nine months or 12. However, I will settle for six. I beg to move.
Lord Mischon: The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who has a very definite memory and imagination can, I think, envisage, if his amendment is passed—another allowing nine months or 12 months will presumably come forward at Report stage—having a different kind of notice displayed, namely, one saying "Closing down sale of indecent exhibitions: buy early: we are closing in six months' time ". That is a situation which I do not think this Committee would like to see. I would have thought that a three-months term here was a very proper and appropriate one.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I hope the noble Lord will accept that three months does not sound very much, but the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, well knows that all booksellers, newsagents and the like have been aware of this Bill for at least the last six months and many of them have made the necessary changes already, as again no doubt the noble Lord also knows. Three months from the date when the Bill reaches the statute book, which hopefully will be by the end of next month, gives them from the beginning of the year, when they certainly knew it was coming along, nine months. I would have thought that that is really quite adequate time. Once the Bill is on the statute book we had better let it go forward and become effective as soon as may be.
However, in saying that, may I just add that the noble Lord is a little over-painting the picture with his words about the persecution of shopkeepers. He knows very well that that is not the case. This is simply a reasonable measure of protection to every family in the country, and to many men and women who are most anxious about the present displays and the effects they are having on their children. I am sure that he is as much in touch with the other place as I am—probably more—and knows what a very large number of Members of Parliament are approached by their constituents on this matter. As regards the question of persecution, the noble Lord has really got the picture the wrong way round.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My noble friend Lord Mishcon has a more vivid imagination than I have. I should not have thought that it would happen in that way. We are not stopping selling. They are only selling in a different part of the shop. In fact, they are selling in a part of the shop that a lot of people, who would not have bothered otherwise, will want to go to. They will want to look around behind the notice board and, if they are over 18, they will have freedom of access to look at what is there.
There is a lot of nonsense being talked about this Bill and its provisions, and what it is attempting to stop. I believe that this is almost Cloud Cuckoo-land, from the point of view of stopping what people basically want to stop. In many cases, it is not so much the public nuisance that they want to stop; it is the material that they want to get rid of, which is not in this Bill. However, I must have a full survey of how we have got on in the course of this evening's Committee stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment, along with others I have withdrawn, and will take stock for the next stage of the Bill. I am very grateful for the patience of most noble Lords here this evening and I feel satisfied that we have, at least, put some parts of the Bill that needed examination under closer examination than they have had before. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

British Railways Bill
The Queen's Consent signified; reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Wallerawang Collieries, Limited Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with an amendment.
British Railways (Pension Schemes) Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with an amendment.
Whitehaven Harbour Bill
The Queen's Consent signified; reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
  DETENTION CENTRES: PILOT PROJECT
  DETENTION CENTRES: PILOT PROJECT
  ARMS EXPORT CONFERENCE IN LONDON
  ARMS EXPORT CONFERENCE IN LONDON
  THE CROWN AGENTS: PORT DEVELOPMENT IN ERITREA
  THE CROWN AGENTS: PORT DEVELOPMENT IN ERITREA
  THE CROWN AGENTS: VISITS TO ETHIOPIA
  THE CROWN AGENTS: VISITS TO ETHIOPIA
  THE UN FOOD COUNCIL: MEETING
  THE UN FOOD COUNCIL: MEETING