—Took the Oath.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, decisions regarding prosecution are for the Crown Prosecution Service and not for Her Majesty's Government. Careful consideration will be given by the service to any allegations made to it that British companies have fraudulently overcharged the Ministry of Defence on arms and equipment contracts.

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether it is the case that 23 British companies have had to return over £30 million to the Ministry of Defence because of the revelation by the National Audit Office that they had overcharged the Ministry for arms and equipment provision?

My Lords, the Ministry of Defence has certain rights under non-competitive contracts which enable the Ministry to review the price charged under a contract after its completion and to secure a refund if the information on which the price was based turns out with hindsight to have been inaccurate. It was that process which was followed to enable refunds to be made.

My Lords, how long have inquiries into these very serious matters been continuing? Are they being conducted by the police? If so, will the police be reporting to the Director of Public Prosecutions or to the Ministry of Defence?

My Lords, in one particular matter inquiries by the Ministry of Defence police are continuing and the investigating officers have recently sought and received advice from the Crown Prosecution Service fraud investigation group.

The answer to the second part of the noble and learned Lord's question is that the report would, of course, go to the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is for him to decide, in the event of a report being made, what action should be taken.

My Lords, is it the suggestion in the noble and learned Lord's last answer that with regard to all the other cases he is not aware of any breach of criminal law?

No, my Lords, I did not imply that. It is fair to say that in one other case a report was submitted by the Ministry of Defence police to the Crown Prosecution Service. It was the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service that there was insufficient evidence to institute criminal proceedings. However, that is the only investigation of which I have any knowledge which has, at the end of the day, come to the notice of the Crown Prosecution Service.

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether it is the case that over the past 10 years 36 cases of actual fraud have been reported to the Ministry of Defence police of which only two have resulted in prosecutions? How does it come about that companies can defraud a Ministry without being liable to prosecution as they would be in a normal commercial case?

My Lords, I do not have before me the information the noble Lord seeks and it does not fall directly within the ambit of this Question. I shall be happy to respond to the noble Lord but all I can say, as I said earlier, is that where allegations are made to the Crown Prosecution Service it will be for the service to determine whether there are grounds for taking the matter further by way of prosecution.

My Lords, is it not the case that for fraud to be established the intention to defraud must be proved? For the noble Lord opposite to suggest that fraud has been proved is utterly and completely wrong.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. That is what I was endeavouring to state but I did not do so as forcefully as did my noble friend.

My Lords, is it the case that the matter is in the hands, so to speak, of the Director of Public Prosecutions, or is it the case that police inquiries are still continuing?

My Lords, the matter to which I referred in response to the noble and learned Lord is one in which the Ministry of Defence police and the Crown Prosecution Service together are continuing investigations.

My Lords, far from my making an accusation of fraud, is it not the case that the National Audit Office had taken the matter to the Ministry of Defence and that the Ministry of Defence considered that these were fraud cases? It was not on my say-so but on the evidence given by the National Audit Office.

My Lords, so far as I am aware these were matters which the Ministry of Defence itself referred to its police force for investigations. If I am not correct on that matter, I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, while the review of the National Health Service is in progress, the Government welcome constructive suggestions on its future funding. We will consider carefully every such suggestion put forward, including this one.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that somewhat non-committal reply. Does he realise that all over the country, probably outside the ranks of the Government, there are people who are convinced that the National Health Service is in a state of crisis and who wish to do what they can in small and large groups in the way of raising money? Will he not pay attention to these people who wish to help and who realise that their money can be used, even in small ways, for specific purposes within the NHS?

My Lords, yes, most certainly. However, although I accept that every little helps and that this proposal enjoys popular support at the present time, it would be unreasonable to expect a national lottery to make more than a marginal difference to NHS funding. The Health Services Act 1980 gave health authorities powers to raise money locally but did not extend to local lotteries. As I said, that matter will be given our active consideration.

My Lords, although I agree with the noble Earl that the National Health Service is in a state of crisis, does the Minister really feel that this proposal is constructive? Would it not be a device that would enable the Treasury to save money from the finances that it puts at the disposal of the NHS, inadequate though they may be? Do not the Government accept the conclusion of doctors, nurses and indeed the public at large, that health care is a national responsibility paid for by the people in the fairest way; namely, by taxation and not by lotteries, sweepstakes, coffee mornings, T-shirts and so on?

My Lords, I made it quite clear that in the Government's view every little helps. In 1986–87 fund-raising activities by health authorities generated around £3 million, but that was only a small proportion of all their charitable income, which totalled nearly £117 million. Charitable fund-raising has been going on for a very long time; governments of all persuasions have welcomed it and will continue to do so.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when I had the chance to debate this subject on radio with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I received a vast number of letters showing that, although people hate paying their taxes, they want to give to the National Health Service provided they can have a gamble on it?

My Lords, yes, but the Treasury currently receives £800 million from taxation on gambling, and it is important for that sum not to be endangered by the new sort of gambling proposed. Having said that, I also believe that the £117 million which is already raised from charitable income for the hospital service should equally not he put in danger.

My Lords, while the National Health Service would welcome additional funds from any source, I ask the Minister to ponder very carefully the advisability of appearing to give government or NHS approval to gambling, which some of us believe is as potentially damaging to the citizen and indeed to society as other forms of addiction. Will he also bear in mind the possibility of the thin end of a rather large wedge? This could lead to the installation of fruit machines in hospitals and doctors' waiting rooms.

My Lords, there are some Members of your Lordships' House, and indeed many people outside, who would not object to that. Clearly such matters would have to be considered extremely carefully. However, I am aware that the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Gambling, which were debated in this House in October 1978, concluded that it would be inappropriate to use a national lottery to help fund services such as the NHS which have a statutory source of funding, and many of your Lordships agreed at the time with that view.

My Lords, if my noble friend cannot answer me now, will he be good enough to write to me to tell me how much money is invested in the Pools every week, because that same amount of money might just as well go to a national health lottery?

My Lords, I shall have to write to my noble friend. I have not the slightest idea how much money is invested in the Pools every week, but taxation of the Pools is around 40 per cent. and already raises vast amounts of money for general disbursement by the Government.

My Lords, in his reply to the noble Earl's Question the Minister said that this review was going on. Will he be good enough to tell us when it is likely to be completed and whether it will be published?

My Lords, no, I am afraid not. The review, as I have said on many occasions, will be wide-ranging and fundamental. We are concerned with the development of health services to meet the country's needs for many years to come and we shall bring forward proposals in due course.

My Lords, the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought he said that the health authorities raised about £3 million in extra money for the services. I may have the figure wrong. I should be very grateful if he would pay special tribute to the 1,360 Leagues of Friends in Britain. He was kind enough to address our conference. Would he be kind enough to pay tribute to the £15 to £16 million they raise for the health services every year?

My Lords, yes, most certainly. I recall only too well addressing the conference chaired by the noble Baroness in the autumn. However, the money that she refers to would be comprised in the £117 million which comes to the health service from charitable income from all sources at the moment.

My Lords, with regard to the question from the Liberal Benches about gambling being the thin end of the wedge, can my noble friend tell us how much of the income from the biggest gamble of all, Premium Bonds, goes to the National Health Service and other matters?

My Lords, not for the first time my noble friend puts me in some difficulty. I have never heard of a lottery where one can have one's stake money refunded.

My Lords, various forms of fundraising for various aspects of the health service have been welcomed, by all governments, as the Minister rightly said. However, will he state quite clearly for the professional people in the National Health Service that at all times the Government accept full responsibility for maintaining the efficiency and general strategy of Britain's National Health Service?

My Lords, of course we do, and that is why that is enshrined in various Acts of Parliament.

My Lords, referring to the supplementary question of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, is the Minister aware that any move to bring in a national lottery would negative tremendously the amount of voluntary work being put in today which enables a good deal of equipment to be bought for the health service that should be provided by the taxpayer?

My Lords, one of my cautionary remarks this afternoon on the idea of a lottery has been that whatever we do should not endanger the £117 million which is currently provided from charitable sources.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State recently announced that he will be listing, in England, a further 500 traditional red kiosks as buildings of special architectural or historical interest.

My Lords. I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Can he confirm that in respect of the K6 red telephone boxes the 1,000 to be listed were designed in 1936 by Giles Gilbert Scott and that it is this design which we now wish to preserve for our heritage?

My Lords. I can confirm that we are in principle talking about the K6. Out of the 1,000 that are to be listed, 554 have already been listed. In addition, more than 200 examples of the earlier K2 model have also been listed.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that consultations between himself and British Telecom could be better used to ensure that traditional services are preserved and maintained? I know that we can take most things from the Ministry as read! However, when we are considering service to the consumer, surely it would be more profitable to ensure not only that red boxes are available but that the telephones in them are maintained and serviced, and that the consumers interest in respect of access to the telephone and the charges being made by British Telecom is pursued with vigour.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is ingenious in turning a Question about listing into a question about servicing.

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that Dr. Who's Tardis will be included in the preservation?

My Lords, if the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, can find Dr. Who's Tardis I am sure that my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, who is the Government's adviser as chairman of English Heritage, will come to the rescue and recommend the listing of it.

My Lords, as well as the traditional red telephone boxes, will the Government in concert with British Telecom also preserve and maintain new telephone boxes by ensuring that they are kept in order, that the full coin boxes are emptied and that they are protected from vandalism?

My Lords, with respect to my noble friend, that is rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

My Lords will my noble friend agree that red telephone boxes are very much more visible? The new ones are very difficult to see when one is travelling in the dark or in a fog. The red telephone boxes are always visible and it would be helpful if we could have more of them.

My Lords, my noble friend will be pleased that we are keeping so many of the red telephone boxes.

My Lords, may I take this opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State for the Environment on the efficiency with which the English Heritage's listing recommendations have been handled by his department? May I also assure——

No!

My Lords, may I also ask the noble Earl——

Hear, hear!

whether he is aware that we have had a full-time inspector employed on the listing of kiosks since last June and that we have been greatly encouraged by the thousands of letters we have received from the general public expressing their preference for the Gilbert Scott award-winning design of 50 years ago to the modern ones that have been put up, especially in conservation areas?

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, and I am sure that the whole House is grateful to him for the work that he does with English Heritage in recommending the listing of these boxes.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the pleasure of holding on to a large number of these red telephone boxes will spread further than this country? When I asked a Question in the House some time ago your Lordships' discussion was recorded far afield, including in the press of South Australia, where I am sure this decision will give great pleasure.

My Lords, I am delighted that the red telephone box is becoming increasingly famous.

My Lords, is it not the case, though, that the red telephone box is not universally approved, particularly by those people who are disabled, who find the doors extremely heavy to open, and those of us who find that they have been used as public conveniences? Is the Minister aware that, although they are not perfect, the new telephone boxes are better from this point of view?

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a valid point. One of the reasons for the change in the design is that some of the earlier telephone boxes which we are listing were not the most salubrious of places to go into.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the amendments which the Government are tabling today to the Education Reform Bill will secure the transfer of education responsibilities in 1990. The introduction of a separate Bill would inevitably prolong the uncertainty about the future of education in inner London. What is needed is an early decision so that the urgent task of improving London's education service may begin as swiftly as possible.

My Lords, I must say again that I am shocked that a decision has been taken not to have a separate Bill, because a great deal of consultation has to go on.

Question!

My Lords, what arrangements have been made for consultation with the parents, governors and teachers in the inner London schools? If, as I gather, the clauses are to be put down today, does that not leave a short time for those to be discussed before the matter is debated in Committee in a week or two?

My Lords, that may well be a matter for another place. The Government's timetable Motion in another place is the most generous for 20 years. The Government have made it plain that they will allow additional time to debate these issues. Tomorrow there is to be a full day's extra debate in another place and a supplementary timetable for the Committee and Report stages is being agreed. There will be a full discussion. As we discussed last week on the Statement, the whole question of the Government's manifesto commitment and the consultation process that followed have been taken into account in introducing these changes to the Bill.

My Lords, if I may briefly come back, the Minister has not answered my question about the consultations with parents, governors and teachers.

My Lords, we believe that we have already had a very full consultation process on the principle behind the changes. We had it in the lead up to the general election last year.

Oh!

We had it in the consultation process which followed the general election and we are continuing to have it. As the Government have always said, they are listening to the comments that are being made, and in taking those comments into account they are making these changes.

My Lords, what factors have arisen since the Government legislated in the last Parliament for a directly elected education authority for London to make them now decide to abolish it? Do the Government realise that the certain consequences of abolition will be to increase the cost of education in London to central and local funds and to gravely damage the education opportunities for the majority of children in London?

My Lords, during the debate on the Statement last week, we discussed fully why the arrangements for the break-up of the Inner London Education Authority were being changed. The Question tabled today is directed at how those changes will be taken into account.

My Lords, that does not mean that there was a debate on the Statement. We do not have debates on Statements. There has been no opportunity so far to debate the matter.

My Lords, I trust that the noble Baroness will forgive me. Perhaps I should have said discussion.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are many school governors in central London who will be absolutely delighted at the abolition of the Inner London Education Authority?

My Lords, yes.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that professional opinion is united in the view that dismemberment of the Inner London Education Authority will lead to a decline in the quality of educational standards in inner London? Is she further aware that in the House some two weeks ago she misquoted me in a misleading way by suggesting that my views were out of line with those of other professions, when they are not? Can she say why the Government are ignoring the views of experts on the matter?

My Lords, I shall start by apologising to the noble Baroness for referring to her in her absence last week. I had no intention of mentioning her name. However, it was expressly at the request of noble Lords opposite that I referred to her by name. Nevertheless, I believe that I quoted faithfully from her statement.

As regards the results of discussions with educationists, I believe that it has been made clear in terms of the standards of education in inner London that in recent years the whole system has been in turmoil. The step that we intend to take will provide a once and for all answer to the question of responsibility for London's education service. The interests of the children and the ratepayers of inner London are paramount.

My Lords, was not the Question about why there was no separate Bill? Are not we therefore in danger of debating the merits of the decision?

My Lords, I return to the Question. Many of us feel that the Education Reform Bill, as it is at present, is a complex Bill, spreading over a wide region of the educational field. Surely, therefore, to add this issue to the Bill will only further complicate it. Will the Minister speak to her right honourable friend and tell him that many of us feel that it would be far better to deal with the matter in two separate Bills rather than in one gigantic one?

My Lords, the issue of ILEA was in any event to be debated during the course of the Bill. We are not deviating from the principle; we are merely deviating somewhat in the detail. I appeal to noble Lords opposite to ask their friends in the inner London boroughs not to indulge in expensive and acrimonious campaigns, but to accept the realities of life and to co-operate in an orderly transfer of functions in the children's best interests.

My Lords, does the Minister realise that she first said that the future of ILEA was a detail—a view with which most Londoners would not agree—and secondly, that it is wrong for people who disagree with the Government to say so? Does she stand by that?

My Lords, I said that the principle of the changes to ILEA and the devolution of ILEA to the boroughs was already well-established. It is merely a question of the method by which we shall do it and the timing.

My Lords, surely the Minister's assertion that there is general agreement that ILEA should be abolished is not true. I remember in the last Parliament that there was strong opposition in the House to that proposal.

Question!

My Lords, does the Minister remember that in the last Parliament there was strong opposition to the abolition of ILEA, with the result that the Government had to change their policy halfway through the Bill's passage?

My Lords, I am well aware that there is a variety of opinion about our proposed plans. However, we believe that we are responding to the wishes of the majority on the issue.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a school in the borough of Lambeth, which I happen to be visiting tomorrow, the head teacher of which is utterly dismayed at the prospect of her school being handed over to the tender mercies of the local authority, whose leader has described herself as "a militant lesbian", the Labour Party as "racist", and Tory policies as leading to the gas chambers? What shall I say to that head teacher when she asks me my opinion tomorrow?

My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's difficulties and those of the head teacher. We believe that, taking together all the proposed reforms in the education system, schools in small boroughs will be in a better position than they might have been had those reforms not been put in place.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the Government's policy is to destroy the largest education authority in Great Britain? Ought not such a proposal be subjected to all the procedures of Parliament?

My Lords, it will be.

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Local Government Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (Continuance) Order 1988 will be taken.

My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to repeal Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, and to make new provision for the protection of official information and articles, for the publication of certain documents, and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

moved Amendment No. 37:

Page 14, line 17, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of sections 18 and (Questions relevant to code of Practice on Employment of Disabled,").

My Lords, I should like to add my support to the arguments so ably advanced by my noble friend Lord Basnett. The first point to remember is the one he made. The amendment is moved at a time when unemployment among disabled people is double the rate for their able-bodied peers. The code of good practice on the employment of disabled people encourages companies to develop a positive attitude towards the recruitment and retention of disabled people. It helps to overcome discrimination they experience in employment.

I wish to deal with an aspect of the two amendments which concerns the cost-effectiveness and viability of the contracts offered to contractors by local authorities. The Government have stated that local authorities should consider contracts on the basis of their cost-effectiveness and business viability. While the Bill seeks to encourage efficiency in local authorities, Clause 17 restricts information being obtained which is of commercial importance. Disabled people have many skills to offer; they have excellent performance records. In the words of the Prime Minister appearing in New Outlook in November 1984,

"People who employ disabled workers know from experience that it makes good business sense to employ people who are loyal and hard working and have skills and abilities to offer".

The amendment allows local authorities to encourage—not to force—contractors to adopt the code of good practice which can help contractors improve their efficiency. Without this amendment, the local authorities will not be able to obtain the information which is relevant to commercial considerations, as in its current form Clause 17 prohibits questions being asked in relation to workforce matters.

The Government may argue that acceptance of the proposed amendment could lead to local authorities demanding extra resources. The new clause, however, would only allow local authorities to have regard to contractors' compliance with the code of good practice. It does not mean that local authorities will be given a statutory obligation to promote and enforce the code. Those authorities who wish to pursue this line of inquiry should be expected to meet the cost of promoting the code themselves.

The new clause would not provide a green light for authorities to harass employers. But it would allow them to ask some sensible questions which have a bearing on the efficiency of the contractor. The responsibility for the promotion of the code would remain with the disablement advisory service. It has already been stated that contractors who have not adopted the code will be referred to the DAS. If the amendment is rejected the Government will have missed an opportunity to promote the code of good practice. As my noble friend said, the code is supported by all sections of industry and by the Prime Minister. When it was introduced, the Minister of State with responsibility for disabled people's employment stated:

"The Government welcome and endorse the code. We believe that it represents an important and practical tool for ensuring that the abilities of disabled people are fully recognised and their potential at work properly fulfilled". [Official Report, Commons, 14/11/84: col. 263.]

I repeat that there are no enforcement requirements in this amendment.

Many employers will know that disabled people are often better workers than their able-bodied peers. We are not asking for extra statutory powers. We are using the existing recommendation of the Government and supporting their policy in this matter. We have said that if additional resources are required the local authorities will bear the cost. We are asking for them to have the right to exercise an option. As we have said, the Disablement Advisory Service, which is already responsible for the code, is extremely overworked at the moment. I hope that your Lordships will be able to support this amendment.

My Lords, when I spoke in Committee on the amendments which had then been tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Basnett and Lord Carter, I suggested that invoking the 1944 Act was inappropriate. Therefore I am glad to make it clear now that that criticism does not apply to the amendments which have just been moved. These amendments do not refer to the quota scheme but to a code of practice advocated by the Manpower Services Commission. In my view this is much more realistic. I realise that the amendments may not appeal to the Government. I do not know what the Government's view is, but they are certainly a great improvement on the past ones. The Government may not think that local authorities should be concerned with these matters in awarding contracts. My noble friend will no doubt give the Government's views shortly.

However, for my part the particular objection to bringing the quota scheme into these arrangements has been removed. The 1944 Act was introduced mainly for war disabled in the post-war years. The quota scheme which it introduced has not been dropped or replaced during the subsequent 43 years, although this was suggested in 1980 by the Manpower Services Commission which was operating the scheme at the time. That was when Sir Richard O'Brien was chairman.

By consent of the majority who are involved in the quota scheme that scheme has not been enforced. The figure of 3 per cent. has been retained as a target rather than a statutory requirement. There are various reasons for that which we went into in Committee. I shall certainly not go into them again now. But the principal reason is that in important areas the related registers of disabled people upon which the scheme subsisted have been less than 3 per cent. of the working population in those areas. If in an area only 1 per cent. of the working population is on the register as disabled, it would be wrong to take punitive action against an employer who could not reach the 3 per cent. quota.

That is the basic arithmetic which has made the Act unenforceable in this respect. But the quota has still been retained because many of the disabled organisations, of which I in some cases have been an office bearer, regarded the quota as a target and still an exceedingly useful part of the 1944 Act. If enforcement had been attempted it would have been bringing the law into disrepute. In Dickensian terms it would have been making the law an ass. That is why some of us felt that it was wrong to try to invoke the quota system in this Bill.

The amendments now under discussion do not try to enforce the unenforceable. I, as I think your Lordships know, have been involved over the years in disabled organisations and I was the chairman for Scotland during the International Year of Disabled People in 1981. Over a long period in this House and in another place I have made my views clear on the general subject which the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, spoke on, so I shall not go further. I agree with what he has said about the need to achieve higher numbers of disabled people in employment so I shall not add to that. But I think that the amendments that were moved in Committee were not realistic for the reasons that I have given. These certainly seem much better, but it remains for the Government to see whether they fit into this Bill or into other legislation.

My Lords, we on these Benches would very much like to support this amendment in the form that it now takes. I was in support of the previous amendment but I can well see that the new amendment is likely to be more acceptable to the Government and half a loaf of bread is better than no bread. It would be a great pity if the noble Earl now told us that we cannot even have our half loaf.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will remember, as I do, that the 1944 Act was based on the report of Tomlinson, who was a leading trade unionist at the time. It was not aimed only at military personnel. It was for all disabled persons.

My Lords, I said the war disabled. That involved quite a large proportion of the civilian population who suffered from bombing. I do not think that the noble Baroness was present in Committee but I mentioned the fact that I was wounded and disabled just about the time when that Act came into force and I have lived with it ever since.

My Lords, I was present in Committee and I heard what the noble Lord said, but I wish to stress this point, which I think some noble Lords perhaps did not quite take. The Act was intended for the whole civilian population. It was never intended to be solely for people who were victims of war.

I am sure that someone will say that if the disabled are able effectively to do a job then the market will find them jobs. If one can believe that, one can believe anything. There is prejudice against people who have disabilities. Often that prejudice is based on extremely out-of-date ideas about how disabilities affect people's ability to work. Any of us who have worked in industry and have had to deal with disabled people know that that is true. It is often extremely difficult to overcome those prejudices in getting employment for disabled people. When disabled people have been properly trained, as other speakers have said, they often excel ordinary workers because their need to have and to hold a job and their difficulty in finding another one are such that they make very good workers indeed.

The MSC is now giving additional support for the training of disabled people. It would be extremely foolish of the Government to discourage an amendment which will make it easier to find jobs for trained disabled people who will make a very good contribution to the economy of this country.

My Lords, I should like to add my warm support for these amendments. Although my name is not on Amendment No. 37 it is on Amendment No. 56 and they basically go together. These amendments enable local authorities to ask questions of contractors and they would at least make firms reflect on their policy for the employment of disabled people.

In Committee on 28th January when the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, moved his original amendment the Minister objected (at col. 811 of the Official Report) that it would mean extra resources and that the local authorities would be setting themselves up as extra statutory enforcement agencies. But if this amendment is accepted, as has already been said, no one will be compelled to do anything. But local authorities could make inquiries about a company's policy on the code of good practice and those contractors which had not adopted the code's suggestions could be referred to their local disablement advisory service.

The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, both in Committee and now, has stressed the very important role that the advisory services play. If as the Bill stands the Government are going to permit local authorities to review companies on the grounds of their compliance with the Race Relations Act 1976, it should not be placing too great a burden on these same companies to ask them to supply information on their compliance with the code of good practice.

It has been said many times already today and in Committee that unemployment among disabled people is double the rate of their able-bodied counterparts. Yet we know that disabled people are good, reliable employees, with lower rates of accident and absenteeism than able-bodied workers, as Dr. Melvyn Kettle discovered in his study Disabled People and their Employment undertaken in 1979 when he was senior research fellow in rehabilitation studies at the University of Aston.

Your Lordships will be aware of the remarkable contribution some very severely disabled people have made to our society. For example, Professor Hawkins is a world expert on black holes. Christie Nolan is the award-winning author of Under the Eye of the Clock. For most of us, such achievements are no more than dreams. But surely disabled people should be encouraged to fulfil their potential, whatever that may be. For most people that entails having a job. If the Bill is unamended, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has said, it will be unlawful even to ask a question about the arrangements made by contractors and suppliers for the employment of people with disabilities.

The Minister is a sensible and compassionate man. I hope that he will look kindly at this moderate amendment. If he accepts it or undertakes to come back with something similar of his own, he will demonstrate that the Government are committed to increasing employment opportunities for people with disabilities.

I shall end with a quotation from Dr. Kettle's study which I hope that the Minister will bear in mind when he comes to reply. The quotation occurs on page 35 of the study. He is, in turn, quoting from a paper written by two research workers:

"By way of summing up the importance of work to the individual, the words of Ullman and Davis are apposite. They have said, 'There is little doubt that work, or satisfaction with work, has ego-preservative functions. It is also clear that loss of work is a considerable threat to the ego. To work is to be needed, and to be needed is essential to life' ".

My Lords, may I first say how excellent it is to see the noble Baroness who has just spoken in her place after a prolonged absence. It is good to hear her, as ever, making an informed and well-thought-out contribution. I agree with everything that the noble Baroness has said in regard to the need for our society to help disabled people to get work. I also agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has said. I am sure that all your Lordships realise that it is still more difficult than it should be for a number of disabled people to get work, and that work is what they want. That is absolutely right.

The question is whether this Bill and this context are the right place to attempt that. The noble Lords who have moved the amendment have properly—as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Campbell—avoided the legal problem which we shall be coming to in later amendments on the subject of contract compliance. This part of the Bill exists to provide a framework within which local authorities can and must put certain of their services out to tender in order to ensure that an authority gets the most cost-effective and efficient delivery of services for the people of the area.

If we put ourselves in the shoes of the local authorities who are putting services out to tender and considering the tenders which they have received, we shall understand that they must see which tender will produce the most efficient and cost-effective service. They do not have to take the lowest tender and they can take a number of matters into account, all of which should be directly related to the commercial aspects of the operation. However, if other considerations are added to the Bill, local authorities will have to engage in long discussions with each tenderer about what the tenderer does about this, that or the other thing.

For reasons which have been deployed, local authorities will have to take account of race relations legislation. That is in the Bill; whether or not it should stay in the Bill is for your Lordships to consider. Under the terms of the amendment, contractors must be asked what they do about disabled people. If one contractor employs fewer disabled people than an authority considers that it should, and another employs as many as that authority believes it should or complies in some other way with the recommendations included in the amendment, then that authority may well decide to give the contract to the wrong tenderer from the point of view of the people who are paying for the service. That is not what the Bill is about.

To my mind, contract compliance is an outdated idea. It is a side way to arrive at a conclusion. It is the wrong way. The Bill is the wrong place to attempt to do that. It would be a grave mistake and it would not be helpful to disabled people to accept the amendment. It would be counter-productive to the proper operation of tendering by local authorities. That has nothing whatever to do with one's desire to help disabled people into employment. Local authorities should be able to do that in other ways.

My Lords, do I understand the noble Baroness to imply that the firms employing a higher proportion of disabled people are somehow less efficient than those who employ a lower proportion? Perhaps I may repeat what the Prime Minister said:

"People who employ disabled people know from experience that it makes good business sense to employ people who are loyal and hardworking and have skills and abilities to offer.".

My Lords, I was not implying that at all. Disabled people often make the best employees. They often make more money for their employers than able-bodied people. I was questioning the place in the Bill of a discussion of the policy of a company on employing disabled people. The Bill concerns tendering and the mechanical process of tendering. I was commenting on the out-of-date nature of contract compliance and the fact that the amendment would frustrate the purposes of the Bill.

My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment, although I refrained from putting my name to a similar amendment at Committee stage. I refrained largely for the reasons which have been deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I feel that the 1944 Act, however splendid it was in its day, is now defunct and ought to be repealed. I do not think that it is sensible to regard a 3 per cent. quota as a target. By and large, it is an unattainable target. That is true at least partly for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has already stated; it literally cannot be fulfilled. The reason is that the number of registered—I place emphasis on that word—disabled people is not sufficient.

People do not register for complex reasons. However, I fully respect the decision of those who do not wish to register. For instance, they may believe that if they reveal on an application form that they have a disability, they will thereby reduce their chances of being employed. For that reason, I believe that the 3 per cent. quota is out of date. I disagree with my colleagues who are concerned with disability in one way or another on that point. I believe that they should stop campaigning for the retention of the quota and start anew.

A new break was made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, when he was in charge of the Manpower Services Commission. The excellent code of practice was introduced under his aegis. I strongly support it. I strongly support the amendment, which is designed solely to make a partnership between the national government, who promote the code of conduct, and the local authorities. It seems to me to be an ideal partnership of national and local government, and at a time when Whitehall and local authorities are all too divided I think that that would be a very seemly gesture. It is the proper place for local authorities to intervene to activate and support government policy. Therefore, to that extent, I must disagree with the remarks that have just been made by the noble Baroness.

After all, Clause 17 is not about employment conditions, but local and other public authority contracts. It is perfectly possible with this clause—as with any clause—to make savings, not by doing what this clause is doing, but by making a saving in respect of questions relevant to the code of practice on employment of disabled people.

For that reason, I am very happy to support this amendment. I am very glad that, apart from the speech of the noble Baroness, it has had support from all round the House. I believe that discrimination should be avoided if at all possible, especially against those who are disabled. For some time I have been campaigning to have a Select Committee of this House consider how such discrimination could be diminished if not eliminated. I believe that co-operation between the local authorities and the national authority—the Manpower Services Commission in this instance—could do nothing but good. I hope very much we can have a positive answer from the Minister today.

My Lords, perhaps I may make just a brief observation. I think that we all agree with the underlying philosophy of the proposed amendment and what it seeks to achieve; namely to make it more likely that employers or contractors employ a greater percentage of disabled people. That has to apply whether it is in connection with local government contracts or anything else. It just happens that we are discussing the matter in the context of this Bill.

I have some reservations. There is much in what my noble friend Lady Carnegy said when she asked: what is the Bill seeking to do and what will happen in practice? Let us imagine that the local authority receives a number of tenders on the given date. With this amendment the Bill will require the authority to take cognisance of the employment of disabled people; but to do so, it has to start by making inquiries as to the extent to which that is already done. In practice this is bound to lead to the very thing that the Bill seeks if possible to avoid—to have local authorities concerned to obtain the best contracts they can for the citizens whom they represent and all that flows from that.

This matter of ensuring that disabled people are employed is an emotive one. People are in favour of it. I am absolutely in favour of employers taking the highest possible percentage of disabled people. Indeed, if one looks at the matter in the context of this Bill, I think that it can only lead to authorities becoming involved in discussions and adjudications. I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said. I am sure that he meant it. At the end of the day the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that contracting employers are conforming. That is what he is anxious to bring out, and I sympathise with that aim. However, I have reservations as to what will happen in practice when authorities start to make inquiries, as they will be obliged to do. It has to be said that there will be some who will not adopt the attitude that has been expressed today, and with which I concur. That is my concern.

My Lords, would the noble Lord be prepared to support the amendment if he were satisfied that it did not require the local authorities to ask those questions but merely gave them the power to do so if they wished to exercise it? It would be up to the local authorities to ask whether contractors had due regard to this matter. They would not be required to do so. Would he be prepared to support the amendment on that basis?

My Lords, if that is clearly the intention I should feel differently about that aspect of it. I should like to hear what the Minister says and whether he too feels there is the possibility of the problems that I have mentioned.

My Lords, my comments will be quite brief. One has to consider, in privatising the services of the local authority by putting them out to contract—call it what you will—that taking them away from local government control can prove detrimental to the employees who are already working for local authorities in departments where an outside contractor might take over their work.

The disabled may receive preferential treatment—if one can call it that—in that they are looked at much more kindly by local authorities, government departments and hospital services. I am involved with the blind and one instance that springs to my mind is British Telecom. All the people it could possibly help were given opportunities to train on new equipment. It has been that kind of body—public or semi-public—which accepts its responsibilities, as my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington reminds me.

Can the Minister give an assurance that contractors will take on such responsibilities? That is all that we want him to say. It can then be put into the Bill. We should know that the contractors coming forward will be just as responsible as the local authority was when it was doing the job.

My Lords, I support this amendment. Visually handicapped people seeking work have to compete on unequal terms in the labour market. In the last decade there has been a dramatic fall in the number of visually handicapped people obtaining jobs in the blue-collar sector, and sheltered employment has not taken up the slack. It was concern about that which led the RNIB—the Royal National Institute for the Blind—to commission a survey which showed that visually handicapped people who are unemployed are out of work for a long time despite the fact that most visually handicapped people seeking work have a very creditable employment background. They are not people who have nothing to offer.

As the Bill stands, local authorities cannot take account of a company's attitude to the employment of disabled people. The RNIB is concerned that the positive steps which local authorities have been able to make in encouraging companies to promote equal employment opportunities for people with disabilities should be allowed to continue. Companies should be encouraged to follow the guidelines of the Manpower Services Commission in the code of practice on the employment of disabled people.

My Lords, the new clause proposed under this amendment is different in form from that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, at Committee stage, but I have to say that our objections to the principle behind both amendments remain the same.

At Committee stage, the proposed new clause attempted to involve local authorities in ensuring that contractors fulfilled their obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, a role which rightfully belongs to the employment service of the Department of Employment. The new clause now before us is rather different in that it attempts to involve local authorities in ensuring that contractors have regard to an advisory code of good practice.

If all that a local authority wants to do is bring the code of good practice on the employment of disabled people to the attention of firms with which it is considering doing business, there is nothing to stop the authority sending a copy of the code to a contractor with its invitation to apply for inclusion in an approved list or with its invitation to tender for a contract. However, that is not all that this new clause seeks to do. It seeks to allow local authorities to ask questions, and take account of the answers, about the non-commercial matters in Clause 17(5)(a) if they think it reasonably necessary to ensure that contractors have regard to the non-statutory code.

I do not wish to repeat the arugments I deployed at Committee stage against local authorities taking on the role, not awarded to them under present statute, of ensuring observance of the law—in this case the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. However, our objections to local authorities assuming the role of ensuring that a non-statutory code of good practice is observed are equally strong, if not more so.

Surely we all agree with the underlying philosophy behind the amendment moved by the noble Lord. Lord Basnett. I am sure that we all support the value of the code and, as the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, said, wish to encourage companies to employ handicapped and disabled people. However, it would be wrong for me not to point out the possible consequences of accepting this amendment. On the one hand, there is the consequence, so well stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth)—whom we are delighted to see back in the Chamber—that the authority could refer the tenderers to the relevant agencies. However, my noble friend Lord Bellwin was absolutely right to say that there was another consequence of this amendment: that an authority could decide to refuse to do business with a particular company on the grounds that the company did not, in the authority's view, have proper regard to this particular voluntary code of good practice.

With reference to the second limb of the new clause, which would allow local authorities to refer prospective contractors to relevant agencies, perhaps I may just say that such a provision would be entirely superfluous. There is nothing in the Bill to stop authorities referring contractors to the Employment Service of the Department of Employment or the Manpower Services Commission—the relevant agencies with statutory responsibility for disabled people's employment—if they consider contractors need advice or guidance on such employment.

What is clear from our discussions today is that many noble Lords are not satisfied with the way that the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 operates in practice. But, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour said, this is not the Bill in which to make any amendments that noble Lords would like. Whether to allow local authorities to impose on contractors their views on how an advisory code of practice should be observed is the substance of this amendment, and we believe that they should not have that power.

My Lords, did I understand the Minister to say that he did not believe that local authorities should be required to enforce a code of practice? If that is the case, do the Government intend to remove the responsibility on the local authorities to enforce the code for straw burning?

My Lords, no. I believe that the noble Lord misunderstood me. I hope that I have made myself clear. Of course there is responsibility on a local authority for its own employees. I am saying that it should not have that enforcement duty on contractors and tenderers.

My Lords, they do not employ the people who burn the straw.

My Lords, I rise not to question the Minister further—and I wish to adhere to the new procedures which we are looking at for Report stage—but because there are matters which have been inadequately dealt with in the Minister's reply. We have been led astray to some extent by the well-informed, historical analysis of the nature of legislation as it relates to disabled people. It does not matter very much whether the 1944 Act is the right way to set about tackling this problem as opposed to codes of practice brought forward by the Manpower Services Commission. The important fact is that which was stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) —that the unemployment rates among disabled people are twice that among able-bodied people. That is the fundamental fact we have to face.

We therefore have to consider whether there is any opportunity in this legislation for us to make matters better—or at any rate not to make matters worse. My noble friend Lady Fisher put her finger on the matter when she said that there are already a significant number of disabled people working for local authorities in services which, if this Bill is passed, will have to be privatised. It will be generally agreed that local authorities have a reasonably responsible attitude towards the employment of disabled people. But they are more likely to pay regard to the 1944 Act, to the various codes of practice, and to the advice of the disablement advisory service than many of the companies who are likely to be tendering for local authority services. Therefore if we leave this clause as it stands the prospect is not of any improvement in the situation of the disabled with regard to employment but of matters getting worse.

In view of that, concessions from the Government to allow this to be part of the questioning and consideration given by local authorities to those who are tendering to do their services is not an immodest or unreasonable demand. It has been put forward with notable rationality and moderation by the noble Lords who sponsored this amendment. I am sorry that it has received such a dusty answer from the Minister. I suggest to them that they would be well advised to test the opinion of the House.

My Lords, perhaps I may raise one point following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, with whose speech I very much agreed. I have no doubt that there are many good private sector employers who do the best they can to provide employment for seriously disabled and other disabled people. However, the noble Lord is right in this sense. I believe that in this area many local authorities have had an outstanding record of positively working to ensure that they employ the maximum number of disabled people. If this Bill is not amended, there is a substantial risk that the position of many disabled people will substantially deteriorate. The Minister has so far in no way met that argument.

It is all very well to say, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said, how much one is in favour of helping the disabled. I am sure that that is the objective of all of us. The central question, however, is not whether we wish to do something to help the disabled, but what practical steps we shall take when there is a realistic possibility of doing something, rather than just talking about it. That is why I believe this amendment is right. My noble friends and I will vote for it.

My Lords. I hope that the noble Lord has read what I said on disabled people on other occasions with regard to the Bill. If there are extra costs in employing local authorities in a direct labour organisation these can be discounted when it comes to the tendering situation.

My Lords, I make a simple, brief point. If your Lordships support this amendment you are doing something for the disabled. If you fail to support this amendment you are doing them an injury—and none of us should have any doubt about that.

I appreciate the statements of support made by noble Lords. All contributions have been supportive except two: those from the noble Baroness and the noble Lord opposite. The noble Baroness accepts the need to do something for the disabled but wants to close an avenue whereby local authorities at the moment give that assistance. That shows little appreciation, in my view, of the continuation of the need for this assistance. In attempting to close one avenue there is no suggestion of what other avenues can be opened. Let me emphasise this. That avenue is open at the moment and we are closing it if we do not accept the amendment.

I say to the noble Earl that there is no contract compliance in the amendment, no extra statutory enforcement rights, no compulsion for local authorities and no interference with the efficiency of the companies concerned. I remind the House of the remark made by the Prime Minister and quoted by my noble friend Lord Carter concerning the efficiency of some of the disabled who work in firms already. One cannot dismiss that. I must test the feeling of the House.

moved Amendment No. 38:

My Lords, there are two reasons I should like to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Platt. The first relates to social justice and the second to economic efficiency. Women have achieved a great deal in the past 20 years in terms of their position in the labour market. However, they still have a long way to go before they catch up with men. The best statistic which demonstrates that statement is that on average their earnings are only 75 per cent. those of men.

As everyone knows, we have a woman Prime Minister; but in many fields there are far too few women at the top. The reverse is the case. Women tend to be concentrated in lower status jobs with lower pay than men. Is that just or fair? Women want to play a full part in the nation's economic life but they do not want to end up in jobs which provide fewer rewards in terms of either pay or job satisfaction.

Turning for a moment to the efficiency argument, can the nation really afford to waste the talent and the ability of many women because they are not fulfilling their potential? Surely it cannot. Surely we must try to provide the means to prevent that happening in the future. The inclusion of sex in contracts compliance procedures is, of course, only one way of preventing it. It is not the only way because other things are needed, including better training and better child care provision; but it is an important way. To suggest that employers always know what is in their best interests is patently untrue. I am afraid to say that old attitudes die very hard. As a result, some employers are consciously —perhaps more often unconsciously—discriminating against women.

I must agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Platt. The fact that the Government have conceded that contract compliance is a desirable method of improving employment opportunities for the black community and for the religious minority in Northern Ireland will make it all the more incomprehensible to women that the Government are at present unwilling to do so as far as employment opportunities for women are concerned.

In the debate on Second Reading of this Bill I referred to the fact that the Government are taking what I believe to be quite unnecessary powers actually to determine the questions that local authorities may ask contractors regarding race. Those questions have now been published and I am afraid that they confirm the worst fears of those with experience in this field. They will not provide the information that local authorities need adequately to enforce contract compliance. If this amendment on sex is accepted I very much hope that the Government will not jeopardise its effectiveness by producing similar, over-limited and ill-thought out questions rather than letting local authorities get on with it using the existing statutory code.

In my generation women have had to fight extremely hard to achieve parity with men in many fields of employment. Some have been successful, but many others have found the struggle just too hard. There is a prospect of doing something about this through the amendment. I hope that it will be accepted so that women of my daughter's generation have a little more help than those of my generation.

My Lords, quizzes are rather fashionable at the moment, so I will begin with one. What have Cleopatra, Boadicea, Joan of Arc, Florence Nightingale, Margaret Thatcher and the noble Baroness, Lady Platt of Writtle, in common? They are all women who have made their way in the world without the help of the Equal Opportunities Commission or contract compliance.

I feel that there is a great deal to be said in many fields of life for expanding the opportunities for women to be employed. However, for two reasons I differ from the philosophy behind this amendment. The most important of these is that I believe it is quite wrong to link this either to the question of discrimination on racial grounds in this country or to the totally different situation of the two, alas, conflicting religions in Northern Ireland.

It is a fact—a damnable fact, but it is a genuine fact—that race prejudice in this country is widespread in all classes of society and makes itself felt, among other ways, in a denial of equal opportunities to members of minority groups. It was therefore reasonable, in my view, to give a greater area of enforcement to bringing about a remedy to this problem than in the case of women. I submit that in their case there is, in spite of what the noble Baroness said, no evidence of the kind of discrimination which is based solely upon prejudice against people who in every other respect would obviously be equally qualified.

There is, of course, some hesitation in certain areas of employment as regards the employment of a woman compared with a competing male candidate, but that arises not from prejudice but from some natural disabilities under which women labour. I have never seen a pregnant black man. I do not think it would be desirable that women should heave dustbins. I think it is a blot on Soviet society, which I understand Mr. Gorbachev is trying to correct, that women do so much physically hard labour. In other words, when we come to the employment of women, we are dealing with reasons—some may be exaggerated, some perhaps blown up out of Proportion—which are quite different from the reasons which lead us to try to protect the members of ethnic minorities.

The second reason is that, if reliance is placed upon anti-discrimination legislation of this kind—and here I differ profoundly from the 3 million women who apparently support the noble Baroness Lady Plan of Writtle; that monstrous regiment of women, as a Scottish clergyman once described them—we may take our eyes off what is, or should be, the main objective of those who are concerned with greater opportunities for women's employment. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, would agree that over the years I have shown my concern in this respect. The main objective is to ensure that women are given the same opportunities through training at the various levels of industry and other occupations which will make them telling competitors. They will get to the top, as did the famous people to whom I referred, without the inclusion of this particular form of contract compliance. It is misleading and to some extent insulting to women and the ethnic minorities to put them on a par in this way.

My Lords, some of us are at a disadvantage. We do not speak Neanderthal. Is it possible to have a translation service?

My Lords, I am not absolutely certain that that was a particularly pleasant remark.

My Lords, I am sorry, could the noble Baroness repeat that?

My Lords, I am not sure that the remark made by the noble Lord was anything other than insulting to a Member of this House.

My Lords, may I have the Floor? I was so amazed at the speech made in the context of this debate that I failed to understand it. My remark was not intended to be offensive but to be mildly humorous after the rather insulting nature of the speech to which the House had to listen.

My Lords, I usually agree with my noble friend Lord Beloff but in this case I must disagree with him. I should like to give one example to illustrate why I do so. I am no Cleopatra and certainly not a Boadicea, and I am nothing like as intelligent as the Prime Minister, but some years ago I applied for a job and was very thrilled because the employers sent for me first. I thought I had the job.

It was a very senior job and the committee said, "You are the best candidate but we do not want a woman. Therefore we are not going to offer you the job but are offering it to the man who applied." The committee did so but he was so inefficient that two years later he was sacked. In that case, had the Sex Discrimination Act been in operation, the employer could not have done that. Therefore, I have to say to my noble friend Lord Beloff that there are times when women do achieve something but because of discrimination they are not given the job.

My Lords, the account of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, of how women have made progress is most compelling. He named six women who had done very well. He had to go back 2,000 years to get his six! As far as I am aware most of them were born with a silver spoon in their mouth or married a man able to put a silver, or even a golden, spoon into their mouth. Both attributes are a very great help. Many of us have neither been born in such circumstances nor have we been able to acquire them.

The noble Lord says that there is no discrimination against women as there was in the past. Perhaps I may remind him that in 1971, before the Sex Discrimination Act came into force, the percentage of women in the Institute of Chartered Accountants was 1.6; in the Law Society the figure was 4 per cent; there were practically no women engineers at all, with a figure of 0.6 in the case of the civil engineers. There is no doubt that all of us, those who have worked and friends of ours who have worked and applied for jobs, could repeat the kind of story that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has reported from personal experience.

There is no doubt that there has been discrimination—often unconscious, I absolutely agree, but all the more difficult for that. I prefer to meet the discrimination of a man who says, "I do not want you because you are as woman", than the man who says, "We are very in favour of women". As one chairman of a committee said to a female member—the statutory member of course—"Yes, Madam, we like women. Your misunderstand us. We are in favour of women, we like them, we have them at home". That has been the attitude that we have been up against. It is far more damaging than open discrimination, which I agree is less than it used to be. Because discrimination is so deeply entrenched that most people are not even aware that it is going on, we need the support of the law.

It was a mistake that such a clause was not included in the Sex Discrimination Act in 1975. If we had had the wisdom of hindsight, we should have put it in. It is proposed that we now put it in. Can the Government be so limited in their approach as to say, "No, we will not give it to you now, even though we give it on grounds of race. Wait until we find parliamentary time to make an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act and then of course you can have it"?

Let us not waste any more time. We all know what the real situation is. Let us vote for the clause quickly.

My Lords, I should very much dislike to find myself involved in a row between by noble friends Lady Faithfull and Lord Beloff. That would be an exceedingly uncomfortable position to occupy, particularly for one who is as faint-hearted and full of fear as I am.

I approach the amendment, and indeed the Bill, I have to confess, as I approach most Bills, with a lack of enthusiasm for modern legislation. That said, I have to add that that lack of enthusiasm applies particularly to that body of the law which aims to make people behave reasonably when it comes to questions of discrimination on grounds of either sex or race. However, we do have legislation which sets out to forbid such discrimination.

Now the Government are placing before us a Bill that says among other things that when contracts are put out for tender the local authorities must confine themselves to the question of getting the work done well and on reasonable terms and must not go outside matters that do not arise directly out of the contracts. Then, as I understand it, a degree of discrimination will be allowed. We are told that local authorities will be free to discriminate on questions of race. I find it very difficult to keep company with my noble friend when he asks us to agree that it is all right for local authorities to challenge a company as to whether it behaves itself properly on questions of racial discrimination but that it cannot raise the same, similar or parallel question where sex discrimination is concerned.

Therefore, while I have the greatest possible regard for the wisdom and judgment of my noble friend, I shall find it very difficult to support him in the lobbies if he is not swayed by the arguments so eloquently put by my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle.

My Lords, the debate is turning into a discussion about whether there is discrimination against women. Indeed, there was a debate earlier today about whether there is discrimination against the disabled. Woven into the debate is the subject of discrimination on grounds of race. I have to say yes to all three charges. There is discrimination. What I am not convinced about, nor shall I be, is that the Bill should be used as a vehicle for putting right all those ills. That is not its purpose.

My noble friend will know that I have enormous disquiet over the amendment to Clause 18 put into the Bill in another place concerning discrimination in favour of people of racial minorities. I do not believe that it will necessarily work in the interests of those people. The more we legislate in this way the more we thwart what noble Lords hope to achieve.

If this exemption is made, we are moving right away from local authorities having a primary function, first, to determine the services that they wish to provide, then to put them to the market and then to see that the jobs are done properly. As a member of a local authority and of that great 3 million people alleged to be in favour of the amendment, I know that this will become an industry. It will put a layer of bureaucracy onto the private sector the like of which your Lordships have not seen.

The rationale for the Bill in the first place was to rid local authorities of the nonsenses that there have been when determining who shall do work. We have all seen the worst examples of this. Here we are bit by bit putting back into the Bill scope for getting up to further nonsenses. I do not believe that any of this will be in the interests of our coloured brethren, of the disabled or of women.

I firmly believe that the people to determine whether a company or individual is in breach of law are the courts, not local authorities. Local authorities should not act as judge and jury over commercial companies. I believe strongly that the disabled should have a Bill enshrining within it protection to outlaw discrimination against people on grounds of disability. Judgment on whether someone is discriminating should not be left with local authorities.

I make this plea to those who are wavering. If their concern is about women, not only in the work place but in the work that they do in order to take their proper and rightful place in the hierarchy of a company, this bid to enshrine the principle in the Bill will not achieve that objective. I ask noble Lords not to accept the amendment. There was an earlier reference to being weighed down by paperwork. I can confirm that people certainly will be weighed down by paperwork.

Imagine the first questionnaire that will go out—and I have the questions that are out for consultation in front of me. Question No. 4:

"is your policy on race relations set out?".

Examples are given of how it should be set out. Companies are then required to write in to say, "Yes, our policy is set out". The local authority can then require justification and proper substantiation of that information by written submissions.

I should prefer to ask a company whether it is abiding by the law, full stop. If it says that it is, whether it is in breach of the law should be a matter for the courts to determine subsequently. The industry that this will spawn will not be in the interests of the people we serve or the three groups that we are talking about. It will certainly not achieve what noble Lords hope to achieve by the amendment.

My Lords, I support this amendment. In doing so I find the Government's position very difficult to understand. I understand the position of some Members of the House such as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who is completely opposed to the principle of contract compliance. I understand, with some difficulty, the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I believe his speech was an indication of the fact that discrimination against women is not completely understood. It is the deep, ingrained attitudes about women which bring about the discrimination; it is not deliberate discrimination. The noble Lord described pregnancy as a natural disability. Pregnancy is part of normal life for the majority of women, but so is earning a living and having a career. We have to facilitate both within our policy.

Therefore it is clear that some noble Lords do not yet understand the nature of discrimination against women. I believe it was the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who said in Committee that women have made tremendous progress. Quite considerable progress has been made in recent years, but I believe we must recognise that it has been made because of the legislation operating at the present time. It is the Sex Discrimination Act which has helped women to make that progress. However, progress is far too slow and much more needs to be done. That is why this amendment is so important.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, I find the attitude of the Government to this amendment completely inconsistent. They have stated time and time again that they support the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Opportunities Commission and are anxious to bring about equality of opportunity for women. But they are not prepared to accept this amendment. In failing to accept it, they use Section 71 of the Race Relations Act as their shield. I said in Committee, and I say again, that Section 71 is insignificant compared with the similarities between the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act. Both Acts give the same responsibility to the commissions to eliminate unlawful discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity.

This is an amendment to enable the two commissions to do their work more effectively. As has already been indicated, employers who follow an equal opportunities policy prefer to deal with race relations and sex discrimination together. One of the difficulties is that if the clause goes through unamended, those authorities which are already pursuing an equal opportunities policy on the basis of contract compliance will be able to do so in future in relation to race discrimination but not in relation to sex discrimination. If the Government's stance on promoting equality of opportunity between the sexes is sincere, it seems to be the natural corollary of their policy that they would enable this clause to be accepted.

It is the responsibility of employers to obey the law, to obey the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act, but both commissions have found that from time to time employers need a nudge in the right direction. The nudge can be given by the question process and further assistance can be given in the form of advice to those organisations which seek it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, indicated, there is no compulsion on local authorities to follow such a policy.

I hope that the Government will think again and decide that they can proceed with the elimination of race and sex discrimination on an equal basis by incorporating this amendment into the Bill.

My Lords, following my noble friend who has just spoken, I should like to remind the House that we are talking about equal opportunities. I speak as one who has been involved in the fight for women practically all my life, and we still have the fight before us, I am afraid. I notice that we are all slipping back into the "Mr." "Mrs." syndrome and we must be careful that we do not find ourselves becoming the little woman behind the throne, which I thought went out with Madame Pompadour. This is about sex discrimination—equal opportunities. I went through the legislation originally because I was in government then and I can recall speaking to a group of nurses because there was discrimination against men becoming nurses and midwives. We are talking about equal opportunities for both sexes.

We know only too well that if these matters are not written into Acts of Parliament they are not obeyed. There are the health and safety Acts. Why do we have these Acts? We have them because they are necessary. Just as it is necessary to remind companies, employers and local authorities that there is race discrimination, so we must remind them that there is sex discrimination. If I had my way there would be an Act about age discrimination, because I receive many letters from people who want to know why they cannot apply for a job because they are over 50. There are many forms of discrimination. These measures must be written into Acts of Parliament, otherwise they will not be obeyed.

My Lords, as a mere man perhaps I may say a few words in this debate. I am quite in favour of the amendment and I certainly feel that any discrimination between men and women should be entirely eliminated.

I should like to say something about the word "discrimination". It should mean any lack of preference in either direction, but unfortunately it has too often been interpreted as a preference for the less favoured party, whoever it may be. For instance, when the Race Relations Act was first introduced, one found that a whole number of foreign people were employed not because they were better at the job but simply because they were foreign. It seems to me that the only factor that should count in an appointment is whether people are good at their jobs and whether they are able to do them more efficiently. One should entirely ignore whether someone is male or female, English or foreign.

There are some things that women can do a great deal better than men. There are a few things that men can do better than women, possibly because of their superior physical strength. Apart from that there should be no preference, one way or another. If we pass the amendment I should hate to see a whole lot of men immediately losing their jobs and women being appointed instead.

My Lords, three types of objections to these amendments have been put forward and I want to suggest to the House that they are all in their own ways either misconceived in matters of fact or misconceived in the interpretation of the amendments. I hope that when he replies, the Minister will not feel it necessary to rely on some of the points that have been made.

The first proposition was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. He said that there was no need to intervene because there is really no problem about sex discrimination. I readily yield to the noble Lord, Lore Beloff, as a compiler of quizzes. I much admire the quiz that he helped to compile in The Times this morning. However, he was answered effectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The fact of the matter is that there has been, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said, discrimination against women throughout nearly all the time the noble Lord was talking about, and where there has been progress it has come largely because of the efforts made in legislation and in attempts to move public opinion against discrimination.

The fact that there is still so much further to go is indicated by what was said by my noble friend Lady Blackstone, who pointed out that the average earnings of women are still 75 per cent. of the average earnings of men. I did not know that the figure was as high as that. The Institute of Personnel Management which ought to know best in this matter has strongly supported contract compliance and the continuation and extension of anti-discrimination legislation.

The second argument was that put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who spoke of the bureaucratic nonsenses that would arise if the clause were to be implemented. I cannot think that she has read the clause. The clause says that the questions have to be approved by the Secretary of State and that the evidence which the local authorities are able to take into account has to be approved by the Secretary of State. If that is not an adequate power for the Secretary of State to ensure that there is no bureaucratic nonsense, I cannot think what is.

The third point was that there will be a burden on the companies in answering the questions put by local authorities. The answer to that is exactly the same answer as in the case of the race relations legislation. The burden on companies is only to comply with the law and nothing else. There is no additional burden and there is no requirement other than that of seeing that the existing law is complied with. The analogy with the Race Relations Act and the additional clauses which the Government have accepted on that subject is immensely powerful.

In the circumstances I much prefer the points put forward from the central bank of the Conservative Benches by the noble Baronesses, Lady Platt and Lady Faithfull, and the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, to those put forward by a smaller number from the extreme Left-wing. I hope that the Minister will feel the same and that the House will see fit to support these amendments.

My Lords, the main point has not been mentioned by the noble Lord. The question is whether in operating the tendering procedure local authorities should be asked to assist in enforcing a law in other companies through a tendering procedure, a law other than one which it is already a mandatory requirement for them to enforce. They have the mandatory duty to assist in enforcing race discrimination legislation. They do not have a mandatory duty to do this in relation to sex discrimination. This point was made clear at previous stages of the Bill. This is the nub of the matter.

We know that the noble Lords on both the Liberal and Labour Benches are extremely suspicious of the effect of this Bill on local authorities. They do not want to back up the whole notion of depoliticising the business of issuing tenders. They do not want a clear framework for the tendering procedure. We have seen that from the voting pattern to date. Whether this debate about the importance of continuing with the work of the Equal Opportunities Commission is linked to that desire, or whether it is completely separate, I do not know, but the effect of what we are talking about is that it would be linked.

I believe that the sex discrimination legislation has been absolutely crucial to the development of women. I do not regard even my own progress as unrelated to it because I have got there by being a mandatory woman and all sorts of things. I have been very fortunate in that regard. There is still a lot of work to do. I admire what my noble friend does and what the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, did, as chairmen of the commission. We have been discussing that issue but the real point of the amendment is to amend a Bill about the tendering process. A discussion even on questions which have been agreed by the government of the day, a discussion with firms which are tendering about whether they are keeping the law of the land in this respect, is not only irrelevant but is likely to be very damaging to the purpose of the Bill.

I believe that the debate has been put in this context for reasons additional to enthusiasm for the work of the Equal Opportunities Commission. I approve of the Equal Opportunities Commission, and I feel that there is a long way to go, but this amendment has no place whatever in the Bill

My Lords, the only reason that there is the difference between the two Bills is that the Sex Discrimination Bill was first and the Race Relations Bill was second. If the Race Relations Bill had been passed before the Sex Discrimination Bill, I have no doubt that there would have been a similar Clause 71 in the Sex Discrimination Bill. I hope that the Government will take that into account.

My Lords, these amendments so ably moved by my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle, who unfortunately was not able to take part in the Committee stage debate, are identical to those equally ably moved and withdrawn by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, at that earlier stage. I warned on that occasion that I feared that I would have to repeat my arguments against the amendments, and I am sure your Lordships will understand that inasmuch as the amendments have not changed, neither have my arguments.

Much has been made of the fact that the Bill does not deal with sex and racial discrimination on an equal basis. Indeed the debate we have had this afternoon has ranged much wider than the amendments or their effect. Although I was interested in what my noble friend Lady Faithfull said about trying to obtain a job at an earlier stage of her career, I can say to her and to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that the amendments are not about appointments. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said that we must write things about sex discrimination into Acts of Parliament. Parliament has already done that in the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act. The duty on employers not to discriminate is already clearly set out, along with the means of enforcement. Therefore the amendment has nothing do with that aspect. It is about allowing local authorities to assume a further role.

I must remind your Lordships that the Bill has been drafted deliberately to reflect the present position regarding local authority statutory duties. I say to my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil that there is a basic difference in that respect between the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976. Local authorities have no statutory duties, except as employers, under the Sex Discrimination Act; but they have limited powers under Section 71 of the Race Relations Act. It is solely those powers that we have translated into the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said that that seemed to her almost irrelevant. A provision in a Bill cannot be irrelevant—

My Lords, I said "insignificant".

My Lords, I apologise. I shall take the word as "insignificant". However, a provision in a Bill is not insignificant; it is rather vital, which is why we have translated into this Bill that section of the Race Relations Act rather than anything in the Sex Discrimination Act, which does not relate to the issue. When the noble Baroness said that her amendment was an enabling amendment to allow the two commissions—that is, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission—to adopt the same practices, she was not quite right. I think that she will now realise that the amendment has nothing to do with the powers of the Equal Opportunities Commission and that it relates solely to the local authority's powers.

Let me repeat that in the event of the Equal Opportunities Commission deciding, as a result of consultations on its document Legislating for Change, to press my right honourable friend the Home Secretary for changes to the Sex Discrimination Act which, among other things, would impose a Section 71 type duty on public authorities as part of a package of changes which the commission would wish to see made to the Sex Discrimination Act, the Government will give careful consideration to such a proposal. If that proves to be the case (my noble friend said that that is what would happen) and if the Government are persuaded of the need to make such changes, the position with regard to the contractual process would of course need to be reflected in the amending legislation.

I must also repeat and emphasise the point that the provisions of the Bill in no way weaken the duty of contractors to observe the law on sex discrimination or indeed on any other matter. I appreciate that my noble friend will be no more satisfied with my rejection of her arguments today than she has been with their rejection at earlier stages of the Bill's proceedings. But she is asking the House to set up local authorities as extra statutory enforcement agencies when the law already provides the remedies to deal with those who do not comply with the law.

My noble friend Lady Platt said that there was no requirement for local authorities to perform such duties. But some of them have already done so. That is the mischief. Local authorities have set themselves up as extra statutory enforcement agencies on a huge raft of activities, the common factor of which is that they all relate in some way to non-commercial matters, upon which they ask contractors to answer numerous questions so that they can decide whether to approve that contractor or tenderer.

The issue is not about race, which is covered by the Bill, but it is about local labour; training; the fair wages clause; whether there should be self-employed labour only sub-contractors; the South African and other policy conditions; and whether contractors have to be members of trade associations. Those are just some of the examples of the raft of noncommercial matters that local authorities insist should be taken into account before deciding whether to approve a contractor. The amendment is asking local authorities to set themselves up as further extra statutory enforcement agencies with regard to that point.

My Lords, I have listened to the debate and am most grateful to your Lordships for the interest that you have taken in this matter and for the support that I have received. Many women have succeeded on their own, thank God, over the generations but many have not. As an Equal Opportunities Commission we have a statutory duty to consider applications for assistance and that we have done. We have taken cases to the courts and the courts have decided that people have acted unfairly.

I am sorry to say that often the people concerned are powerful employers with the power to hire and fire, dealing with young women who are in a vulnerable position, perhaps in their first jobs. Women need those jobs. They may not always have the job they would first choose, but they need the money. There are a million one-parent families in this country. In nine cases out of 10 the mother is the breadwinner. Three times as many families would be on supplementary benefit if the wife or mother were not working. I am pleased to say that some employers are good, and have good equal opportunity policies which they carry out with determination; but others do not, and their attention should be drawn to our Act.

We should value the assistance of local authorities carried out in a reasonable manner and in terms of equal opportunities between men and women, not just for women alone. The proposal covers men and women generally. Requirements are laid down by the Government, and I am sure that they will preserve the principle of simplicity.

I am disappointed by my noble friend's reply, which I believe shows a narrow, legalistic view. Our two Acts were carried out in parallel, albeit one after the other, and our two codes of practice also went through both Houses in parallel with all-party support. I believe that in the Bill we should remain the same and that sex equality should be regarded on an equal footing with race. I must test the opinion of the House.

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, does she agree with me that, whereas the race relations legislation is part of the mandatory responsibility of the local authority, the sex discrimination legislation is not, and therefore, it would be difficult to discriminate between the two?

Order!

My Lords, I did not realise that I was out of order. I thought that I had the right to ask for clarification.