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

My Lords, considerable interest has been shown in the scheme and the Government are confident that it will be of great benefit in encouraging investment in new trading ventures. It is not possible at this stage to give particulars of investment by individuals as claims will not be made until next year. But two funds have already been launched which are seeking to raise £16.5 million for investment in this field.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which is extremely encouraging for this very enterprising start-up scheme. Will he please say whether he considers the amount of capital that will be invested in these companies to be sufficient for their needs—risk capital?

My Lords, we keep this matter under continual review. In the last two Budgets a whole series of measures have been introduced, designed to encourage the flow of new capital into small enterprises. This is an entirely new departure and one without parallel anywhere else in the industrial world. We wish it well and will watch its progress with great interest.

My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether the considerable interest he has referred to is really unparalleled? Can he also perhaps put some flesh on the bones of a rather bare statement?

My Lords, it is the scheme itself which is without parallel elsewhere in the industrial world. So far as putting flesh on the bare bones is concerned, the simple truth of the matter is that the scheme has only just been embodied in legislation but the first claims by individuals investing under this scheme can be made only after April of next year. It is only then that we shall be able to gauge how successful the scheme has been; but it has made a good start.

My Lords, while welcoming the general thrust of the entire scheme, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government have given consideration to significantly increasing the loan limits that are at present in force? May I also ask whether the noble Lord has fully taken into account the extra interest burden that seems so far to be inevitable?

My Lords, I hope I may be forgiven if I say, with respect, that I believe that possibly the noble Lord may have in mind the loans guarantee scheme rather than the business start-up scheme. The business start-up scheme is designed to encourage raising new equity capital, and indeed there is a strong argument for saying that it is in the lack of equity capital that the weakness lies. But the loans guarantee scheme has already made a very good start, with more than 800 loans having been already agreed, amounting to approximately £30 million.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that while all parties are, or should be, in agreement with the general purpose of this scheme, most of us who are actually trying to operate it are finding the drafting extremely cloudy and are in some doubt as to whether we are doing the right thing?

My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given by the noble Lord. If I may, I would make two comments on the specific points he raises. First of all, a large number of amendments were made on Committee stage in another place which were designed to meet many of the criticisms which had been made, with the result that the scheme as it finally emerged represented a noticeable improvement on the scheme as originally introduced. Secondly, as my honourable friend Mr. John MacGregor, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry, announced on 22nd September, a series of 14 regional conferences and 50 smaller conferences have been set up in order to explain the terms of the scheme to people who are interested.

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

My Lords, it is not possible to predict exactly by how much United Kingdom exports to the Community would fall if they were subject to the commons customs tariff, nor precisely to quantify that fall in terms of job loss. However, last year the United Kingdom exported some £20,000 million of products to our Community partners, and clearly many jobs depend on these exports.

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his illuminating reply, may I ask him what alternative markets are there and whether we are fully exploiting those that may exist?

My Lords, I have no doubt there are a number of alternative markets, but if we were to withdraw from the Community it is a matter of speculation whether those markets would be taken up. What I would tell my noble friend is that since we joined the Community the percentage of our exports which go to Community states rose from 30·6 per cent. in 1972 to 43 per cent. in 1980 and now West Germany takes the largest percentage of our exports, 10·7 per cent. of the total, and has superseded the United States of America which only takes 9·6 per cent.

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the assumption made in this Question, that our exports would be subject to a unilaterally imposed common customs tariff, is a very fanciful one indeed? Is the noble Earl aware that any examination of the figures will show that, in effect, the boot is on the other leg; that we take from the Community over £1,000 million more in manufactured goods than we export to the Community, and that a customs tariff against fuel supplies to the Continent would be extremely unlikely? Will the noble Earl please bear in mind that it would, perhaps, be better if these very important EEC matters which involve us all, and concerning which the facts are fully known, were discussed in a completely dispassionate atmosphere, as distinct from being on the basis of an emotional spasm?

My Lords, I am not quite sure who was having the spasm. I rather thought that it was the noble Lord opposite. But my noble friend is entirely entitled to ask this Question. She is entirely entitled to ask what would be the position if we were subject to a common customs tariff on all our exports. The noble Lord ought to bear in mind that the current export/import ratio in manufacturing with the European Community is far more favourable than with alternative trading partners which we have, such as North America and Japan.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that even the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, in their latest document about the consequences of withdrawal in the agricultural sector, recognise that considerable unemployment would arise in agriculture, and that our own exports of agricultural commodities, which are now a great success within the Community, would be diminished? Would my noble friend therefore consider lending a copy of this document to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, to assist in a more calm discussion of this subject?

My Lords, I realise that the party opposite are entirely at sixes and sevens over our membership of the Community. All I would tell the noble Lord is that we believe that we should remain members of the Community and that we have a great trading future with it.

My Lords, since withdrawal would disrupt not only our own economy but also the economies of our partners, can we rely on them renegotiating with us in a thoroughly dispassionate spirit?

My Lords, I do not think that the position will arise.

My Lords, has my noble friend seen two estimates from very responsible political leaders, which show that the consequential effects on unemployment might add between 2 million and 2¼ million to the total now existing?

Yes, indeed, my Lords, I have. But, of course, the net amount of jobs lost would depend on the quantity of trade which might, or might not, continue despite our withdrawal, and what new trade links could be negotiated as a result of our withdrawal. My noble friend is entirely right about the effect on the number of our jobs. If I may, I should like to quote what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, which was:

"Over 2 million jobs depend on our trade with Europe. 2 million jobs which will be put at risk by Britain's withdrawal",

She then went on to say:

"And even if we kept two-thirds of our trade with the Common Market after we had flounced out—and that is pretty optimistic—there would be a million more to join the dole queue. That is only the beginning".

My Lords, may we say how much we have enjoyed this exchange between the various members of Her Majesty's Government?

My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Baroness was a member of Her Majesty's Government, and I am entirely delighted to carry on any such conversation if she so wishes.

My Lords, is it not a fact that exports to the European Community, which stood at £11,848 million in 1977, have now reached £20,541 million in 1980, and if we left would it not be catastrophic?

My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right; it would be catastrophic. If he cares to take himself back to when we joined the Community, our exports to the Community when we joined in 1972 were only £2·9 billion and they are now, as he said, £20·4 billion. That is a very substantial increase and a very substantial amount of exports.

My Lords, since the noble Earl has given the figures about exports to the Community, would he care to give similar figures about our imports from the Community?

My Lords, I should be delighted to do so if the noble Lord would care to put down a Question.

My Lords, may I ask the Minister, if we are doing so well from the Community, why is it that we have 3 million unemployed? It is a very simple question.

My Lords, there is such a thing as a world recession. I will tell the noble Baroness, if I may, that the United Kingdom has a higher percentage of its population in employment than any other member state of the Community, with the exception of Denmark.

My Lords, in view of the noble Earl's reiteration of the prophecies of unemployment, with which he has been kind enough to regale us, will he bear in mind that the Government have no credible record in the whole business of forecasting and that it would be wise for them to be extremely cautious?

My Lords, that is precisely what I was trying to be. In furtherance of the noble Baroness's question, I would remind the noble Lord that we are not the only country which is suffering problems of increasing unemployment, and that between August 1980 and August 1981, while the United Kingdom's unemployment increased by 46·9 per cent., West Germany's increased by 49·1 per cent. and that of the Netherlands by 55.6 per cent. So we are not alone in the difficulties.

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

My Lords, the Secretary of State for the Environment will consider any proposals which he may receive from the Countryside Commission or from the local authorities concerned, but there is little reason to regard a possible change of ownership as a threat in itself to the character or appearance of Land's End which I understand has been a matter of concern for some while. The land will, of course, remain subject to normal planning controls and I believe the local authorities, the commission and the National Trust will continue to direct their attention towards means of encouraging better environmental management so as to improve unsightly features and to avoid erosion of paths.

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his very informative reply. May I ask him whether he is aware that the grave concern felt by people all over the country is now reaching the point of consternation? May I further ask him whether he would be prepared at some time to make a statement that rather than lose Land's End to any overseas interest the Government will be prepared to help the National Trust and the Countryside Commission financially, so that in the national interest Land's End can be saved?

My Lords, the noble Lord is jumping the gun because at the moment we do not know how much acreage there is for sale, or what is actually up for sale. It is an issue that we would expect in the first instance to be considered by the Countryside Commission, the National Trust and the Cornwall County Council, and I understand that discussions are now taking place between those bodies. May I add that there is no prerequisite for a prospective purchaser in this country of land or property to state his nationality and that many properties owned by people from various foreign countries all over the world are extremely well maintained.

My Lords, will the noble Earl scotch a rumour which seems to have got about, somehow, that if Land's End is purchased by a foreign purchaser they intend to cut it off and tow it away?

My Lords, that would indeed be very difficult. Might I add—of course I like to get a "plug" in whenever I can—that there will be a power under the Wildlife and Countryside Bill when it becomes law for local planning authorities to make a management agreement for the conservation of just this kind of landscape.

My Lords, is not Land's End our country's most famous headland? Would not its sale to a non-British national be regarded as yet another mark of our national decline? What would Shakespeare say about it?

My Lords, of course, with my family name, I should like to quote Shakespeare back at the noble and learned Lord. To go back to his original question, with so many Scotsmen in the House I am not quite sure that one can say that Land's End is the most important.

My Lords, is not John o' Groat's being forgotten?

My Lords, while I am grateful to the noble Earl for his informative reply, I find it a little disturbing that Her Majesty's Government do not know precisely what is at stake. The noble Earl has just admitted it. Would it be possible for the noble Earl to obtain a few back copies of the Guardian and perhaps The Times newspapers which spell it out in detail so that Her Majesty's Government can be well informed and realise what a serious issue is at stake? We are not joking about towing this entire island away, or part of it. Ordinary people up and down the country recognise that something which they regard as part of their heritage is at risk. It is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government to do something about it and to prevent it.

My Lords, the information which we have at the moment does not show that it is at risk but that this land may be up for sale. Just to inform the noble Lord that we are in touch, I have in front of me The Times extracts about the sale and we are trying to follow it up, but nothing in this country has so far been published.

My Lords, would not the sale of Land's End be the beginning of Britain's end?

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

My Lords, the paintings are held in trust by custodian trustees, in this case the Greater London Council, under a trust deed confirmed by Act of Parliament, the Iveagh Bequest (Kenwood) Act 1929. Any proposal to sell the pictures held under trusteeship arrangements would involve considerable legal complications.

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. May I ask the Government to confirm that the important paintings housed at Kenwood, such as the Gainsborough, the Vermeer and the Rembrandt could not be sold without an Act of Parliament?

My Lords, I would not like to go quite so far as that, but the noble Lord is right that there are complications and that it is an Act of Parliament which is in question.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it might help to clarify the matter if I were to read to him what I hold in my hand—

Then I will paraphrase it. It would be better if I were allowed to quote, because what I want to do—

The noble Lord must ask a question.

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that what I should like to do, if I may, is to quote to him a statement made in County Hall—

My Lords, I think it would be very helpful to the House if the noble Lord would put his remarks in the interrogative form.

My Lords, I stand corrected. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that in another place—in fact, the County Hall—the chairman of the arts and recreation committee, Mr. Tony Banks, said that he was fully aware that Kenwood was not in his own legal possession and that the GLC had no intention whatsoever of disposing of any property there.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I myself had got that same quotation down as an answer.

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available tonight at the usual time. The House will adjourn at approximately seven o'clock for a short period.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 12, leave out ("suffers from") and insert ("has").

moved Amendment No. 2:

My Lords, I have listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Renton has said and I hope that I can give him the assurances that he requires about both these amendments. I will speak to both of them now, which I think will be for the convenience of the House. We have sought in Clause 7 to reflect the reality of the circumstances which will arise when parents apply to their local education authority for meetings in connection with any part of the assessment as set out in their child's draft statement. In the majority of cases, I have no doubt that parents will be able to specify exactly in what respect they disagree with the assessment and the LEAs will have little difficulty in deciding what the relevant advice is which the parent should be discussing with the provider of that advice or another appropriate person. That is a point which I think the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has accepted.

However, in other cases it may not necessarily always be clear to the LEA what the parent's real concerns are. Where a number of professionals have contributed advice in one aspect of the assessment in the case of a child with complex special educational needs, it may not be immediately clear which is the appropriate advice upon which to draw. In those circumstances the LEA's role will be, I believe, an interpretative one.

As I indicated during the Report stage, in the arrangement of meetings the exercise of judgment by the LEA cannot be interpreted as giving the LEA the discretion to ignore parents' wishes. I think that that is the fear of my noble friend. It applies equally that in deciding what is the relevant advice which will determine the nature of the meeting or meetings the LEA will not be able arbitrarily to dismiss a concern expressed by the parent. I should like to give that assurance. The flexibility afforded in the present wording of the clause is simply to enable LEAs to judge the parents' needs with a view to serving their best interests as quickly as possible. Let us also remember that if the judgment of the LEA is wrong the parent still has the right to request a meeting with the other professionals concerned with the assess- ment, so there is no danger that the parent can be prevented from seeing the right person; and I hope that will meet the concern expressed by my noble friend.

To turn to the second amendment tabled by my noble friend, the definition of "appropriate person" in Clause 7(6) simply takes account of the reality of the situation with which local education authorities may be faced and I think it is only right that the legislation should reflect this. I hope the noble Lord will recognise the fact that LEAs will have to exercise their judgment again in deciding who is the appropriate person able to help the parents further to understand the nature of their child's special educational needs, and that the question of the "appropriate person" in these difficult cases will inevitably be a matter of judgment.

What is important is that the parent should have the opportunity to see the professionals involved and if these subsections are read in the context of the whole of Clause 7 it will be seen that the undertakings which I gave at Report stage are being fulfilled, that parents will have the right to meet all the professionals involved, and one has to remember that we shall not even have got to this stage before the parents will have been involved at all the earlier stages. At this stage we are talking about a draft statement. The parents will have been involved with the assessment, in seeing the draft statement, and then we are looking at professional advice. This is really a very long way along all the stages of the Bill. Then if, sadly, they are still dissatisfied with the result of this they still have the opportunity to go to an appeal committee, with the final resort of taking their case to the Secretary of State.

I do believe that we have gone as far as we can to meet the quite natural and justifiable concern of parents. At some stage a local authority has to make a judgment, and that is what this definition does. With the assurances I have given, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw these amendments.

My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Renton, because I do know personally some parents who are highly professional themselves; they are perhaps consultants in medicine or professors at universities who themselves have children who have severe disabilities. Local authorities can be very authoritarian and therefore relationships break down. I think the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has a very valid point and I support his amendments.

My Lords, the noble Baroness on the Front Bench was, as always, most reassuring in her assurances. But I did note that she did not specifically answer a point which my noble friend Lord Renton made which certainly weighs with me. My noble friend Lord Renton said that if the Bill stood in its present form it would be impossible for an aggrieved parent to challenge the decision of the local authority either in the courts or in Parliament. I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she accepts that. She did not specifically challenge it, but it may be that she overlooked the point. If she does accept it, I would ask her why that is thought to be necessary.

There will be, I hope, as my noble friend said, very few such cases, but, given the potential number of cases of this kind—it is inevitable that there should be some—where the parents may feel passionately, may wish to face the expense and chances of litigation, or may wish to approach the Member of the House of Commons who represents them or indeed a noble Lord or noble Baroness in this House, is it really necessary, if my noble friend is right, to exclude those two avenues of approach? If the noble Baroness is prepared to argue that it is necessary I should really like to hear from her a little justification for it.

My second question really goes on from that. Can the noble Baroness explain to the House to what extent the procedures which she outlined so clearly and admirably a moment ago would be interfered with or handicapped or inhibited if the words of my noble friend's two amendments were put in instead of the existing words?

My Lords, I reply with the leave of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has asked two questions. I am sorry if I did not answer the first one as fully as I perhaps should have done. I must emphasise that this is at the end of a very long process from the time when the child is first identified as a child having special educational needs, the parent being brought in at the first stages and taking part in the multi-disciplinary assessment, the parent being involved with the assessment that is made, the parent being involved with the draft statement.

If the parent is dissatisfied with the draft statement, the opportunity exists to consult with those professionals who are responsible for drawing it up, and to do so over a period of time. Then at the end of that, if the parents are still dissatisfied, there is the opportunity to go to an appeal committee and finally to the Secretary of State. If at the end of all that they still believe that the local education authority is acting in an arbitrary way they are entitled to appeal under Section 68 of the 1944 Act, as any parent is entitled to do.

I do believe that we have gone as far as we can to meet what I recognise are very real concerns. If we get to this kind of situation, then I think it will be due to a failure which would be very difficult to put right by putting it into law, because it will be a breakdown in human relationships. I think that would be a sad fact, but I believe we cannot meet it further.

Turning to the reason why I am not prepared to accept these amendments, it is not just an arbitrary decision on my part but because I think that, in the interests of the local authority, there will be cases where the local authority will have to make a decision about who should be the person the parents should see at some stage. Therefore, there has to be some mechanism to make quite sure, where there could be uncertainty or difficulty, that someone has the final right to say so. To take that out I think would make for more confusion and probably bad law than leaving it in. That is the reason why technically I cannot accept the amendments. In saying that, I do want to give the assurance that I am not in any way trying to go back on undertakings I have given. I recognise the feeling of the House in this, and the Government want to meet the natural concern of parents as far as they possibly can.

My Lords, if I may briefly exercise my right of reply—

My Lords, I think the noble Lord should preface his remarks with, "by leave of the House".

My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend. May I, with the leave of the House, reply to the short debate which has taken place? I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for their support. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Young for her fairly full explanation, although I regret to say I cannot accept it. In the first place, in her concluding remarks she said that this would be bad law. If this would be bad law, what are we to say about what the Government have so wisely done on the British Nationality Bill, from which they have deleted nearly every reference to the original proposition that the Secretary of State was satisfied, thereby removing the objective test and enabling the matter to be challenged in the courts or Parliament in a way that could not so easily have been taken had those words remained in? I really cannot accept that this would be bad law. It might be slightly embarrassing to some of the local authorities if they could not always have the last word.

In addition to that point, I see no difficulty technically about accepting these amendments, for the reason I have given just now. But surely my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was right when he emphasised, as I had tried to make clear and he made more clear, that if we do not accept these two amendments there will be that minority of bad cases in which things will go wrong. It is awfully tempting, because one has such great faith in the zeal and interest of my noble friend Lady Young in this matter, to say "Well, she is full of hope that everything will go right". But with great respect I do not think that is a sure enough foundation for our work as a revising Chamber. Therefore, with great reluctance and some regret, I do feel that I cannot withdraw my amendment. The only question is whether I let it be negatived or ask your Lordships to divide. Having thought about that, I feel that it is necessary to ask your Lordships to divide.

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 9, line 11, leave out ("the authority are of opinion that").

My Lords, as this amendment is concerned with voluntary bodies, I should like to offer my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Renton and to the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults. I was delighted to hear that the society had received the gracious permission of Her Majesty to add "Royal" to its full title. I am sure that this recognition of the work of the society will be greatly acclaimed, and that all parts of the House will be pleased to endorse it.

On this Bill I find myself continually in a great difficulty. As my noble friend Lord Renton said in moving this amendment, as he did on the former ones, this clause of the Bill was, in fact, brought forward by the Government to meet the concerns which were expressed in another place and in your Lordships' House about voluntary organisations, just as earlier the parts of Clause 7 were brought forward to meet concerns about parental knowledge as regards statements for children with special educational needs. No matter what it is that we do, clearly, in the eyes of many people we have never done enough, though we hoped that we had met a concern which I and my colleagues recognised. The concern was that when parents first discovered, very tragically, that they had a handicapped child—and the first person to know of this would almost certainly be the doctor, the health visitor or, indeed, the hospital—the hospital authorities would put the parents in touch with a voluntary organization—a view by which we stand. Indeed, that is the object of Clause 10 of the Bill.

My noble friend dislikes the thought that there should be any circumstance in which the health authorities might use their discretion about putting parents in touch with a voluntary organisation. Of course, when we are talking about voluntary organisations, such as the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults, it is quite clear what the circumstances are and with which organisation one should put the parents in touch. But I am quite certain that if my noble friend Lord Renton considers the matter carefully, he will recognise that we must be quite realistic about the circumstances. Very tragically, when some children are born they will suffer from more than one handicap and it will be a matter for professional judgment in which direction to encourage the parents to look for additional help and support outside the health and social services; in other words, with which voluntary organisation or organisations they should be put in touch.

In other individual circumstances there may well be occasions when a particular local organisation will be inexperienced. It very much depends on the individuals locally who are able to give their services to the organisation. A good voluntary organisation can be of enormous help to parents. But let us suppose that there is some doubt about it. Is it not right to give some discretion to the health authorities to use their judgment as to whether or not it would be helpful to the parents? After all, it is always open to the voluntary organisation to get in touch with the parents or to the parents to get directly in touch with the voluntary organisation itself if they think that there is any doubt about the matter.

Although I recognise that my noble friend Lord Renton will say that it is ultimately just a matter of trust, I believe, again, that when this clause is read in the context of the whole Bill, the health authorities will see—as the clause says—that they must inform the parents, that they are under a duty to inform the parents, of a suitable voluntary organisation. However, if there is not a suitable one, it must be at their discretion whether they do not, either because the child is suffering from a multiplicity of handicaps—perhaps a handicap for which there is no appropriate voluntary organisation—or possibly because the local voluntary organisation is not as good as they would wish.

I do not think that this detracts from the principle of the case and, as in the other cases, I think there will be times when someone has to exercise a discretion in the matter. That is why the clause is drafted as it is. With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will not be carried away by the sunshine of our support for his previous amendment, because on this occasion I cannot advise my noble friends to support this amendment. It seems to me that we are putting the local education authorities in a very difficult position. Any group of people can band together and call themselves a voluntary organisation. They might be some of the less desirable or more desirable people connected with fringe medicines or various cults. To use the words "voluntary organisation" leaves the whole thing far too wide open. If it is the local authority that has advised the parents to contact a particular organisation and the organisation does not, in fact, help the child—it might even (and I have known such sad cases) have had a deleterious effect on the health of the child—that is no one's fault. People working in voluntary organisations very often give up their spare time and do not always become fully associated or acquainted with the complications of those whom they are trying to help.

I think that it would be most unfair for a parent to have to go back to a local authority and say: "You put us in touch with this organisation. Our child has become worse than ever since we contacted them; they have given us nothing but bad advice". I think that that would be unfair to the local authority. Although I pay tribute to all the very good work which voluntary organisations do—and certainly in this field we would be lost without them—I believe that the responsibility must be between the organisation and the parent. I appreciate for once—and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will not be too surprised—that at least it is suggested that the voluntary organisation should be put in touch. But I believe that discretion must be reserved for the local authority, otherwise the amendment would mean that the local authority could never refuse to tell a parent about any organisation however small, kinky, way-out or difficult.

My Lords, may I say at once and ease your Lordship's minds that I am persuaded by the gracious way in which both noble Baronesses have argued against my amendment. But may I just correct the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, because Clause 10 does not refer to local authorities; it refers to area and district health authorities. Nevertheless, I am sure that what the noble Baroness said would in her mind apply with equal force to them as she argued in relation to local authorities. It was Clause 7 that applied to local authorities, local education authorities in particular.

Since I moved the last amendment I have been advised that I have the right of reply and do not need the leave of your Lordships—but if some of your Lordships consider that in view of my loquacity I need your leave, I will gladly ask for it. My noble friend Lady Young may perhaps have thought me ungrateful for not taking exactly as they stood the amendments which she moved at earlier stages of the Bill. I would like to assure her that we are deeply grateful, but our attitude could be easily impaired if for some reason her efforts were frustrated by something being inserted which prevented her intentions from being fulfilled. That is the only reason why I am moving these amendments, but we are none the less grateful to the noble Baroness.

I realise that I do not have such a strong case with this amendment to Clause 10 as I did with the amendment to Clause 7. In view of the considerations which have been expressed by both noble Baronesses, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 14, line 14, leave out ("and is registered as a pupil at a school").

My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Young, replies may I say that I had hoped that this was much more than a drafting amendment because it seemed to me that if we widen the definition of the word "child" to include people in need up to the age of 19, whether or not they were registered at a school, we should be fulfilling one of the main objectives of the Warnock Committee. One of the committee's priorities was 16 to 19 year-olds whom that committee found to be very neglected, unemployed, lacking in facilities for special training and lacking enjoyment of life in many ways. It seemed to me that insisting that a child comes within the definition of this Bill only if registered at a school is going to exclude thousands and thousands of children who most need help.

I am here speaking of the school drop-outs—the children who drifted off at 16 and who have not been found a place in any training establishment. Unfortunately, they do exist. I had a case of such a child only recently. The only advice his mother was given was that he was only fit to go to a sheltered workshop. When she asked where a sheltered workshop was she was told the nearest was 40 miles away and that there was a two-year wait for admission. It is important that we should pay much more attention to this age group. I know we discussed this matter on a previous occasion, on 17th July, but none of the answers was satisfactory; and we know that this is a sphere of great sadness in many families, especially at a time when there is so much youth unemployment. It is bad enough to be a young unemployed person, but to be a young unemployed disabled person is to be in a very sad situation indeed.

I had hoped that what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, intended by suggesting taking out the requirement for the child to be registered as a pupil at a school, was to enable these very children to come within the ambit of this Bill and to give a bit of a tonic to local authorities. It was certainly not the intention of the Warnock Committee that these children should be excluded; in fact I should like to repeat that this group of children was one of the committee's priorities. I very much wish that the noble Lord will reciprocate our earlier kindness by agreeing that his amendment means what I think it means.

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I believe her whole speech may have been based on the assumption that the word "includes" means in this definition "means". In fact it merely reads:

"includes any person who has not attained the age of 19 years and is registered as a pupil at a school;".

All other children, of course, are obviously children.

I am sorry, my Lords, but that does not bear out our earlier debate of the 17th July, when the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said quite clearly at column 1495:

"Those who have left school are not covered by this Bill".

I believe that is the flat answer to the noble Lord, Lord Renton.

My Lords, I am in some little doubt about the wisdom of this whole phrase, which states that:

"'child' includes any person who has not attained the age of 19 years and is registered as a pupil at a school;".

That means to say that anyone who is 18 years and 364 days old is to be regarded as a child. That is ridiculous in this day and age. Generations ago it was probably proper to regard such people as children, but I remember that back in the 1914 war at the age of 18 I was a company sergeant major, and nobody ever dared to refer to me as a child. I consider that the whole of that sentence wants looking at, whether or not the noble Lord's amendment is accepted.

My Lords, is not the matter somewhat complicated in the case of the ages of disabled school children because so many of them have lost time through operations and illness that they may have missed out on years of schooling? In Germany, where I visited educational facilities for disabled children, such children sometimes still go to school long after the age of 20 if need be.

My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the debate we have had on 16 to 19 year-olds. I believe that what the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has said is true; that my noble friend's amendment is in fact more than a drafting amendment. The definition of a child for the purposes of this Bill would be extended by this amendment to include 16 to 19 year-olds who are not at school; that is to say, pupils at further education colleges, who are in work, or who are unemployed. The Bill as a whole—in particular, Clause I—has been so drafted that we are concerned only with those 16 to 19 year-olds who are at school. Were this definition of the word, "child", to be altered, we would do much more than insert a drafting amendment; we would be very much affecting the definition as given in Clause 1.

If, for example, one looks in Clause 1(2)(b) in building up the determining factors as to whether a child has special educational needs, they refer to the educational facilities of a kind generally provided in schools for children of the age of the "child" in question. The reference to educational facilities in schools does not make sense in relation to 16s to 19s generally but only in relation to those of them who are at school, and for this reason the word "child" must bear the meaning given to it which it has in Clause 20.

We had, both in Committee and on Report, long debates on the whole question of 16 to 19 year-olds who are not in schools. I understand the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and my noble friend Lord Renton that it would be much nicer and better if we could extend the definition to include all of those who are in further education, but I do not want to repeat all the arguments as we have been over this ground very fully before. The truth of the matter is that the Department of Education and Science has now a consultation document out on the whole question of further education, and included in this must be, and is, the further education of children with special educational needs. It has been made necessary because some of the legal basis of further education has been questioned—and it is therefore important to put all these matters right at the same time.

It is important that those interested particularly in children with special educational needs should of course make their view known to the department on this consultation document. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will not press this amendment to a Division. As she will understand, it is not one that I could accept. I am very glad to hear that my noble friend Lord Renton definitely does not intend to do so. I think at this stage it would be very damaging to the Bill. We recognise the problem and we are trying to do something about it, but this really is not the way to deal with the problem of 16 to 19 year-olds.

My Lords, again I am grateful to the two noble Baronesses. I had indeed missed the point of this definition of "child" until I heard both their speeches. I accept that my amendment was potentially more than a drafting amendment. However, having heard them both, and having learned a great deal from what they said, I now am a wiser man, I trust, and I certainly do not intend to press this to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 14, line 18, after ("date") insert ("not later than 1st September 1984").

My Lords, I wish briefly to express sympathy with the amendment, for I feel it would be unsatisfactory to leave the commencement date unspecified. There is the danger, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, made clear, that if we did that we should be opening the door to delay. The Government envisage, as she said, the possibility of different parts of the Bill being implemented at different times. But as she pointed out, that would still be possible if the amendment were passed. The only thing necessary would be that the full implementation should be complete by 1st September 1984. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness, Lady Young, could give a greater picture of what is envisaged in the way of stage-by-stage introduction, and would indicate whether she feels that must inevitably last longer than from now until 1st September 1984.

My Lords, there is little I need add after the important arguments advanced by my noble friend Lady Jeger. I suggest that it is dangerous for any Act of Parliament to leave the Minister absolute discretion. If the clause is left as drafted, it will mean that the measure will,

"come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint".

That means that local authorities will have no target date whatever. Unless they have a target date there will be a tendency to postpone the preparation for the coming into operation of the Bill.

It is no use the Minister saying there is not time for that. After all, it is not long since we debated a Bill one of whose provisions was to spend millions of pounds giving special places to more able children from state schools to go to private shools. That was put into operation almost immediately and is now being acted upon in many parts of the country. Just as the Minister would argue on behalf of able children to have that opportunity—I opposed it from the beginning—surely it is more important to give this opportunity as quickly as possible to the less fortunate children in our schools.

My Lords, although I am sure that all of your Lordships on both sides of the House are united in agreeing with the noble Baronesses on the Labour Benches that we do not wish to see the implementation of the Bill delayed, I must confess that I should be very disappointed if we were to make 1984 the target date. There are some local authorities that I would expect to be ready to implement the Bill on 1st September 1982—

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to give way for a moment? My amendment asks that the Bill should come into force "not later than 1st September 1984".

My Lords, there, if I may respectfully say so, I see the danger. If we say that the date should not be later than 1st September 1984, that will cause many local authorities to sit back and say, "We have plenty of time to deal with this. We have lots of problems as it is. We can let this one wait a bit". No, if there is to be a target date, I should much rather see an earlier date. I think that many local authorities could implement the Bill by 1st September 1982, and it would be very sad indeed if they were not all made to go ahead and get on with it, so that it was implemented by 1st September 1983 at the latest.

My Lords, I do not recall, when I previously put down an amendment proposing September 1982, having had the pleasure of the noble Lord's support.

My Lords, it is all very interesting, but let us read what the subsection states:

"This Act shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint and"—

this is so nebulous—

"different dates may be appointed"—

this is a little more nebulous—

"for different provisions or different purposes".

The drafting is so cloudy that far from local authorities knowing where they were, one local authority could have regulations and a date different from that of another. In other words, it does not mean that the Bill could be implemented for all parts of Britain at the same time, but rather that a diktat would come from above. Those of us who have worked in education and who have seen the work devoted to it in the country by education authorities of all parties—I stress all parties—should not underestimate the degree of knowledge and experience of many people on local education authorities throughout Britain.

We talk of the principal Act of 1944. To me that was Butler's great Act. It was a great move on the part of the then Conservative Government. But that Act has been shredded, absolutely shredded, and parts of it are withering away. We cannot afford to neglect the children with whom the Bill is concerned. I do not want to spread the debate much further, but I should like your Lordships to consider classes of 30 or 35 pupils. If such classes include, say, half a dozen children who are handicapped in different ways, they are far too big for those children to receive the attention they need. If handicapped children are to be moved into ordinary schools, there should be provision to limit the size of classes to 25, or at least under 30 pupils. There is nothing in the Bill to state what should be the size of classes when handicapped children are introduced

Those of us who have worked in education think, at least I think, whatever the rest of the House might think, that this is a bad Bill; and the redundancy that is now being created at all levels in the teaching profession is a disgrace to a great country. Consequently, I want to enhance the excellent arguments put forward by both noble Baronesses about the latest date for implementation, and I think that we should adopt the logical words of the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger: "Not later than 1st September 1984". The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is a brilliant advocate and logician, but there is more than logic involved in teaching and dealing with children. We owe something to the handicapped children, and the proposals should be harnessed right away so that the nation can at last get down to giving a square deal to the handicapped children of Britain.

My Lords, I, too, wish to support the observations of my noble friends, especially those of my noble friend Lady Jeger. I was particularly upset by what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said about certain things happening earlier than other things. Some comments have been made this afternoon on education of children up to 19 years of age, and I feel sure that at present no local education authority could in one year fulfil the requirement concerning the continuing education of those in the 16 to 19 years age group. One of the most important aspects of the Bill is that it is written into it that children up to 19 years of age are to be given the right to further education. It is for that reason that I support the date that my noble friend puts forward. It would make it quite clear to local education authorities that they must work towards providing further education by 1984 at the very latest, and some of them would have to pull out a lot of stops to accomplish that.

Good local education authorities are already providing many of the things that are included in the Bill, but what is most important is the provision of further facilities, and we must recognise that fixing the date would be a considerable help to the large numbers of parents of children approaching the age of 16. Throughout the country pressure is building up that something must be done for children at 16 years of age. There is no need for me to remind the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that one of the first groups of parents to challenge the Education Act 1944 regarding the continuation of education came from Oxfordshire. Those parents had the support of the Education Department at that time, but perhaps the Education Department is not now so willing to support other pressure groups of parents up and down the country in regard to continuing education.

We must recognise—I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, brought this out quite clearly—that education Acts have to apply to able children as well as to those who are handicapped. In our education set-up in this country we have at all levels great facilities for able children, and we are trying to include a date in the Bill and ensure that the facilities will also be given to less able children who suffer handicaps. My sole purpose in rising this afternoon is to ensure that the proposed date is included so that the part of the Bill dealing with the 16 to 19 year-olds is seriously considered. Before sitting down, I should like to add that exactly the same words are included in the document. The Legal Basis of Further Education. I have read it very thoroughly and I am not at all happy with the recommendations for further education that are being considered. I hope that all people who are interested in education for the 16 to 19 year-olds will make their observations on the recommendations, since the department is showing all the different kinds of loopholes that every local authority could find to get out of implementing the provisions. But what worries me in particular is what is stated at the end of the recommendations about implementation:

"It is envisaged that different provisions in new legislation might for operational reasons need to come into force at different times".

Are those times to be different from those that we have here? It is in this respect that I would support the noble Lord on the Liberal Front Bench and ask the noble Baroness: Can she not give some guidance to us this afternoon on when the different parts of the Bill will come into operation?

My Lords, I hope that I can set at rest the fears that have been expressed this afternoon; and I should very much like to thank my noble friend Lord Renton for his most helpful remarks and for his interpretation of the effects of this amendment. I have always made it clear to the House that it is my wish that this Bill will be implemented as soon as possible, and I reiterate that today. I should like to place on record that the Government share this view, and that it is our intention that the implementation of the major provisions of the Bill will be well before September 1984. I should like to make that absolutely clear.

Indeed, we hope that all the provisions of the Bill, or nearly all of them, will be in force in time for the early part of the academic year 1982–83; that is, In a year's time. That is the date to which we are working, and that is the date by which I hope we shall see the provisions of this Bill implemented. I think it is important, and it is a matter which has been debated for a very long time. The Bill is in itself creating a new legal framework which will set local authorities on a new course, and I think it is important that it should be started as soon as possible.

There will be no delay on financial grounds because the Bill is based on the best practice at present, and I believe that that is something that is very important. The public expenditure proposals make it clear that it is the Government's wish that the same amount of money will be devoted to special education throughout the period of review, and as indeed we expect that there will be about 10,000 fewer children with special educational needs in the school population because of falling rolls, there will in fact be some extra money for redistribution.

I therefore hope very much that, with those assurances, the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, will not press her amendment. I should perhaps repeat the point that my noble friend made, that were the amendment to go into the Bill, then, if in fact any part of the Bill was not implemented by 1984, it would fall, and I cannot believe that that would be her intention. So I hope that she will believe that in this matter the intentions of the Government are quite clear.

I should just like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, who raised a quite separate point about 16–19year-olds, that we discussed this matter on an earlier amendment today, and indeed we discussed it both in Committee and on Report. The whole area of 16–19-year-olds in further education is not covered by the Bill, of course, and is the subject of the document to which she referred, The Legal Basis of Further Education, which has been the subject of discussion; and the proposals under that document will be, and must be, subject to other legislation. But I should like to reiterate the legal position in regard to 16–19-year-olds, and it is that local authorities have the same duty towards handicapped young people as towards all others over compulsory school age and under 19.

This duty derives from the LEAs' general duty under Section 8(1)(b) of the 1944 Act to secure the availability of sufficient schools to provide secondary education. The effect of this section is that LEAs have a duty to see that suitable provision is available for those pupils between 16 and 19 who require it; and the general view of the DES and others is that this duty may be discharged if the LEA offers facilities either in a school or in further education, and that no individual young person has an unqualified right to be provided with school education rather than further education, or vice versa. But the duty remains where it is, and it applies just as much to children with special educational needs as to any other children.

I hope that with these assurances the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, will feel able to withdraw her amendment. I think it is very important that this Bill is implemented as soon as possible, and I hope very much that we shall see it implemented in time for the next academic year, 1982.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that I do not think we have made any progress in this connection this afternoon. The noble Baroness seems to be living in a totally different world from the world of the people on the education authorities and on the school staffs, and of the anxious parents of handicapped children, who are seeing day nurseries shut, nursery schools closed down and all sorts of facilities contracting, whereas the Warnock Report urged priority for the under-fives and for the over-16s; and when we talk to education officers and teachers about these things they are in despair about the reductions in services which are being forced upon them. So when the noble Baroness says that she looks forward hopefully to the implementation of some aspects of this Bill by 1982, and that certainly she hopes for fulfilment before 1984, I think that, with great respect, that would get a horse laugh from any director of education or any chairman of an education committee who I know at the present time.

The idea that because there are going to be fewer children that will somehow set free some money so that we shall not need to ask for more is quite unreal. We are not talking only about teachers: we are talking about training and we are talking about the extra support services that will be needed as these disabled children are brought into the schools. Let me bring your Lordships down to earth. What do you think happens in a classroom of 30 children or more where there is one child with spina bifida and that child wants to go to the lavatory? Is the teacher to take her? Of course not. There must be available in our schools, if we mean what we say about implementing Warnock, the sort of assistance that will give support and aid and will make the life of that child as normal as possible. It really is unfair to the House, to Mrs. Warnock and her committee, to the parents and to these children themselves to pretend that this Bill can be implemented without any money.

I know the noble Baroness wishes Godspeed to this Bill, and perhaps I may say to her that I think the whole House is indebted to her in that, with all the added duties that she has assumed, she has kept this Bill under her wing. We do appreciate the fact that she has given this time to it this afternoon. I could sometimes wish that her wing were a little cosier, but at least we are glad that she is here. In fact, we are terrified that she is not going to be in this department any longer, because we fear that without her championship we might do even less well than we have done so far.

Of course, these things depend on Government policy. They will depend a lot on announcements which I understand are likely to be made tomorrow—or, if not made tomorrow, leaked tonight or leaked tomorrow. Therefore, I think we cannot just brush this aside by merely hoping in the present atmosphere that it will work out all right and the money will come from somewhere. I am sorry, but on this occasion I must ask my noble friends to vote for the amendment.

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down I wonder whether I might make one small comment. Residential care for handicapped children is very expensive. It costs something like £4,000 or £5,000 a year. If a number of those children are going to be educated at home there will be a considerable amount of saving to local authorities. I just make that small point.

moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 14, line 19, after ("order") insert ("made by statutory instrument").

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. At this stage it would be wrong of me not to acknowledge the care and concern that has been shown on all sides of your Lordships' House during our debates on this important measure. Our debates have taken place against a non-political background and across party lines, and I should like to thank your Lordships for the co-operative way in which you have approached the problems relating to the education of handicapped children. I should like also to take this opportunity on an Education Bill to pay tribute to Lord Boyle of Handsworth, whose recent death will have saddened many Members of your Lordhips' House. The House will recall that he was, apart from holding many other ministerial appointments, first, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education from 1957 to 1959, and later, as a Cabinet member, Minister for Education from 1962 to 1964. The House will also recall, and has reason to be grateful for, his work as chairman of the Top Salaries Review Body which made recommendations for a number of years about allowances in this House.

As many of your Lordships will know, if it had been possible to arrange Government business differently I should have liked to see this Bill introduced first into your Lordships' House, particularly as your Lordships have wide knowledge and experience of problems associated with the handicapped. In the event, however, the debates in the other place served to heighten those areas of proposed legislation where improvements might be made, and your Lordships have taken full advantage of the Government's willingness to consider afresh some difficult areas.

At this stage in the afternoon, I should like to touch on only two particular points of the Bill. The first, which I know has been of great concern to your Lordships, is the integration of handicapped children into ordinary schools. The Bill makes it clear that, in reaching decisions about where a child's special educational needs can best be met, the local education authority must first look at the possibility of meeting those needs in an ordinary school. Even more important, in my opinion, when a child with a statement is educated in an ordinary school, education must take place so far as is reasonably practicable in association with other children in the school. We have thus ensured, I hope, that children with statements are not unnecessarily isolated within ordinary schools.

I have made it clear that the Government do not expect a wholesale movement of children from special school settings into ordinary schools as a result of this legislation. The pace of change will be gradual because we do not have the resources that would be required to integrate all handicapped children overnight. Nevertheless, the Bill makes it clear to LEAs that, wherever possible, integration should be the goal, providing it represents the appropriate way of meeting an individual child's special educational needs.

The second area of the Bill is parental access to professional reports, which has been the subject of much debate. I do not wish to reiterate the Government's views on this issue, but I recognise the concern of parents who, having received a copy of their child's statement feel that there is something more that might have been said about their child's special educational needs. I believe I can offer some comfort here. Your Lordships will appreciate that preparation of post-legislative action in the way of drafting regulations and circulars of guidance is often started by officials in the expectation that Bills will reach the statute book. This is particularly so in cases such as this Bill where the Government wish there to be the shortest possible time between enactment and implementation. Prep- aratory work is already being undertaken in the Department of Education and Science, in consultation with the DHSS, on drafting the statement, the form and content of which are to be prescribed by regulation. I can assure your Lordships that it is the intention of the Government that the statement shall contain sufficient information about the child's needs, and about the medical, psychological, educational and other advice on which the authority's assessment is based, to enable the parents to decide whether to exercise their rights to make representations, to ask for interviews, or to go to an appeal committee.

I believe that the procedures in the Bill will inevitably encourage a system of open advice to LEAs and that the procedures will in practice allay fears about confidential reports. Moreover, the Government amendment which your Lordships accepted will allow the worried parent to go back to source and discuss professional findings with the person concerned. I am sure that this is the right approach, as it allows anxious parents to pose questions and have them answered by those responsible for the advice on a child's special educational needs which has been given to the local education authority.

This Education Bill sets out a framework for the development of special education in the years ahead. I sincerely hope that the co-operative spirit which has pervaded our discussions on this Bill will be mirrored in the discussions locally on how best to meet individual special educational needs. If this can be the case then this Bill will be a far greater contribution to the International Year of Disabled People than the Government anticipated when the legislation was introduced.

My Lords, finally, I should like to thank noble Lords who have so kindly thanked me for taking part in the Third Reading and the last stages of this Bill. I should like to place on record that I believe this to be a very important Bill, and I have been very pleased to do all that I can to further its passage in this House. I hope that we shall see it implemented in the next academic year. I beg to move.

My Lords, I should like to begin by echoing what the noble Baroness said about the late Lord Boyle. I had the privilege of being contemporary with him for many years in the House of Commons. We were all impressed by his ability, understanding and his deeply civilised approach to the problems of our difficult society. Also, combined with that there was a personal kindliness which many of us knew at first hand and deeply appreciated. His early death is a great tragedy for many people who have benefited from his wisdom and friendship.

This is a Bill which we all wish well; but I must be slightly discordant and say once more that wishing is not enough. It seems to me that the Warnock Report was like a good seed that has fallen on rather stony ground. I should like to express our thanks to all those people who have not only worked on the Warnock Committee but to the number of voluntary organisations and concerned people—such as parents—who gave evidence, have been to see us during the passage of this Bill, have given evidence to committees and who have tried to make this a Bill that would fulfil its objectives.

I must remind your Lordships that The Times Educational Supplement— and that is not a roaring rag of a publication—on 31st July said of this Bill:

"Well thought out advice has been disregarded or watered down beyond recognition".

That may be a harsh judgment, but I know it is how some people feel. Added to this there is a fear also that it will be crippled at birth by lack of resources. I very much hope that we shall be proved wrong about that.

The Bill leaves us with several omissions: we shall pursue the question of the over-16s. We have no national advisory council, which many people wanted. My friends and I especially regret this: the Bill leaves us still allowing corporal punishment in special schools. Clause 2 gives an alibi to reluctant authorities by making the provision of special education compatible with "the efficient use of resources". There is confusion and disappointment about the appeals system. I know that the Minister knows this because there has been correspondence with the Advisory Centre for Education—people who know what they are talking about—and if they feel confused, goodness knows how confused many parents must be.

I was glad to notice that the noble Baroness said at an international conference on 9th September:

"We must not forget that a child with special needs can be just as isolated from ordinary children within an ordinary school as he would be if he attended a special school".

I am sure that we can all echo that. We know that without additional resources integration could disadvantage a child.

I can find no extra provision for the under-twos who are supposed to be brought into the education system for the first time. I can find no evidence that the nursery school provision is going to be extended as the Warnock Committee recommended, and there needs to be a seeking out in many cases of these children. We have talked about anxious parents, but I hope that we shall not forget about parents who sometimes are not as anxious as they ought to be or as anxious as they know how to be.

When I was in America I found that the highest proportion of children getting special education were in the most affluent areas, for the simple reason that these were the articulate, knowledgeable parents—sometimes the demanding, rather pushing parents—whereas in some of the run-down and miserable slum areas people are so crushed by poverty, anxiety and ignorance that they would not think of lifting up their heads and demanding what was due to their child. This will be expensive. I found in a typical area 15 per cent. of the children were getting special education and they were using up 20 per cent. of the budget. This was a matter of some comment among people who were not in receipt of special education.

I appreciate what the noble Baroness has said about the anxiety of parents over access to records. I hope she will not mind my saying that I think we ought to put something right that the noble Minister said at column 795 on 30th July. When talking about the practice in America, she suggested that parents have a right of access to educational records only and a medical report is not a required part of the assessment in the United States. I looked up that Bill while I was over there and it is a fact that health data are part of the required input into a child's file.

I shall not reopen that subject today but I found varying views. Some doctors told me that because of this provision for open access to files for parents they "laundered" their reports. That is the word which at least one doctor used and it was done partly because of fear of litigation—and of course they are a litigious lot over there. Then there was the doctor who said: "I did better reports because I knew that lay people would be reading them and I really had to stop doing this professional shorthand and really write something out carefully that I knew could be understood and discussed".

I do not think myself that the anxieties about this matter have yet reached the end of the road, but I am not sure either that the parental right of discussion with an official is the answer. It seems to me that either the official will tell the parents what is in the report, which is the obvious reason for seeking the interview in the first place—certainly it would be my reason for seeking the interview—or, if he will not, then the original dissatisfaction will persist. I will not go further into that point at this stage, but I think it ought to be on the record that there is still anxiety about it. Of course, we wish the Bill well. My only fear is that there is a great chasm yawning between the concept of this Bill and the reality of its implementation; but I shall be delighted to be proved wrong.

My Lords, I should like to associate my noble friends and myself with the tribute paid by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to Lord Boyle of Handsworth. We fully endorse all that was said by the two noble Baronesses. We on these Benches are glad that as a result of this Bill steps will be taken to implement many of the recommendations of the Warnock Report. We are glad that the integration of education of handicapped children with all other children is now accepted as a consequence of the acceptance of this Bill.

Although we share many of the reservations that have been expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, our fears that lack of resources may prove a stumbling block remain. The amendments which we proposed and supported at earlier stages, designed to prevent that from happening and designed to ensure that plans were made at local level for the implementation of the provisions of this Bill, were not accepted and we wish that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, had been able to be more flexible in that respect. Nevertheless, we recognise fully her personal commitment to the aims of the Bill and we recognise the considerable contribution which she has made during the passage of the Bill to improving it, particularly in relation to the assessment of educational need. We hope that this Bill will be very carefully monitored in practice, to make sure that a practical application is given to its excellently good intentions.

My Lords, owing to the school holidays of our two children, I was not able to become involved in the Bill as much as I would have liked. I am very sorry to have to tell your Lordships that my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth), who worked so hard on this Bill, is not in your Lordships' House today: my noble friend is in hospital. Both my noble friend and I feel that more emphasis should have been put on integration into normal schools of children who can cope. It seems that we have not yet caught up with the United States of America and Canada over the educational policies for handicapped children. I think the Bill integrates in the wrong way by muddling up all children who come under this Bill by saying "special educational needs" rather than that "they are children with special educational needs". A bright, physically handicapped child's only need may be an accessible school and someone to help them on to the lavatory. If they go to special schools they may in time have a special educational need, as they will have been starved of educational opportunities. Very many special schools for physically handicapped and disabled children have deplorably inadequate libraries, with few reference books, and only achieve CSE standard.

Last Friday I met the father of two boys who have muscular dystrophy. He told me that with the help of the then Secretary of State at the DHSS, who happened to be Sir Keith Joseph, he managed to get allocated electric wheelchairs. These important aids enabled his children to go to normal schools and both boys went through university. One of them graduated with first-class honours degrees. Both are now working. I hope now, as Secretary of State for Education, that Sir Keith Joseph will help other handicapped children successfully to achieve their full potential.

It seems to be the philosophy of Warnock to do away with categories. I have seen how the generic social worker failed to help disabled people through lack of expertise on specific handicaps. I am sure one has to know and assess what the problem is before one can treat it. For example, the deaf, the blind and the dyslectic all have to have specially trained teachers. Far more training on disabilities needs to be given to teachers in training colleges. The International Year of Disabled People has highlighted many of the needs up and down the country, and one of them is more integrated training in colleges. There are genuine fears of disabilities if people have never come into contact with them and do not understand the results.

I welcome Clause 10(2), when health authorities notify the parents of children under five that there is a special educational need and that, if they think it appropriate, they are to inform the parents of a particular voluntary organisation. I have seen so often how putting parents in touch with a specialising voluntary body can encourage and bring them much-needed information and support. Many of these organisations run counselling services, preventing the families from becoming isolated and the parents frustrated by guilt. If there is to be a happy relationship between parents and professionals, barriers ought to be broken down and not built up. There should be confidence between the two: not a "them and us" situation.

It is a pity that educational records are not more open. I should like to read a letter sent by some professionals after they had attended a debate on this subject in your Lordships, House. They say:

"We are professionals in the field of deafness and since the United States' education laws concerning the confidentiality of records were referred to we would like to share our perception of the experience of our country on this matter.

"The benefits of open records have outweighed the possible hindrances and many of the concerns expressed have not proved to be problems. Our experience has been that open records have been in the best interest of the child for the following reasons:

1. Parents have become more involved in the education of their child. They have become more responsible for the total development of their child and participate more fully in this outside the classroom;

2. A relationship of trust has developed between parents and professionals; and

3. Information in files is substantiated by facts. Care is taken to express clearly the meaning and implications of technical data so that it is understandable and useful to both parents and professionals".

Today I have received a letter from the Minister of State at the Scottish Office, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, telling me that the circular which is to be sent to local authorities about the scope for taking account of the needs of disabled people in deciding applications for planning has been issued. This is connected with the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. This includes granting planning permission when building a school and providing parking and sanitary facilities. So far, I have not heard about the progress of the circular which is to go out with the Disabled Persons (No. 2) Bill.

It is vital that the different departments get together. As your Lordships know, disabled people have so many needs and cross so many departments. These Acts of Parliament are interlinked. If I do not hear anything about England shortly, I shall be putting down a Question to find out what the progress is. With the drop in numbers of children at present, it seems that schools are likely to close rather than that new ones will be built. Therefore, I hope that local authorities will try their hardest to make suitable facilities by adapting some of the existing buildings. So much can be done if the attitude is helpful. Where there's a will, there's a way.

The needs of children with disabilities are so varied. I expect that before long this Bill will have to be amended. There is a problem which I do not think has been discussed, but I hope that some satisfactory solution can be found. This concerns the mobility allowance for children who attend residential special schools. I quote from a letter which I received from the headmaster of Welburn School in Yorkshire last week. He said:

"While I am delighted by the benefit that this allowance has been to so many of my pupils and ex-pupils, I am concerned to note that a few of them do not enjoy any improvement in their lot …

"A small number of my pupils, who are quite properly assessed as eligible for mobility allowance, spend their time at home in uninspiring circumstances, while their parents enjoy the extra income of the weekly mobility allowance.

"It has been suggested that the school should be able to benefit from the allowance during the term times, but I am opposed to this, even if it were feasible to arrange it. Perhaps the best solution would be to make a trust provision which would empower social services to monitor the proper use of the allowance.

"I realise that one could not legislate to compel parents to take children out and about so as to enrich their lives and enlarge upon their experience, but it makes me angry when I discover that the mobility allowance is used by people to run a car into which their handicapped child hardly ever, or never, enters".

Because of the difference of needs and the attitudes of parents and teachers towards the education of handicapped children, we need to keep a flexible approach. I hope that this Bill will not hinder progress, but will help to bring together all concerned to work for the overall benefit of all children with problems. I also hope that the noble Baroness will continue to take an interest in this matter, even though she is leaving the Department of Education..

My Lords, the Government deserve to be heartily congratulated on this Bill and on the open-minded way in which Ministers, including my noble friend Lady Young, have considered the arguments put forward in all parts of both Houses of Parliament. Of course, the Minister initially responsible was my right honourable and learned friend Mr. Mark Carlisle, who is no longer in the Cabinet. Whatever may have been the reason for his departure, he deserves credit for having in this Parliament introduced three Education Bills, and for getting two of them onto the statute book with this one to come. He deserves credit, especially, for acting on the Warnock Report. So many valuable reports of independent committees, Royal Commissions and so on especially on education are well received all round and highly regarded, but they never reach the statute book. But Mrs. Mary Warnock and her committee have, in their lifetime achieved the apotheosis that they deserve.

The parents of mentally handicapped children—and I grant that, although they are the largest group of the handicapped, they are among the smaller groups to be considered by this Bill, because a huge proportion of children who were considered to be normal are now regarded as having special educational needs—are grateful for the main provisions of this Bill dealing with special education, special schools and the assessment of special educational needs. Although it is, strictly speaking, an enabling Bill, like most Bills of this kind, it is unthinkable that it should not be implemented quite soon, as my noble friend indicated.

May I briefly mention three ancillary matters? First, on the confidential reports under Clause 7, I was very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, for telling us that the American provisions apply to medical reports as well as to educational reports. Unfortunately, the Government had apparently been wrongly advised on that and we had a Division, in which those of us who were trying to press the point lost by only five votes. I daresay that it might have been different if I had not had to withdraw that part of my argument. Then, so far as notification under Clause 10 is concerned, I accept what my noble friend said this afternoon in reply to my amendment. We can only hope for the best and that local authorities will co-operate fully. This Bill is a worthy contribution to the many efforts which are being made in this International Year of Disabled People. Well may it serve its purpose!

My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships' House very long, because I know that there is other important business to come. However, I was very pleased indeed that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, paid tribute to the late Lord Boyle, and I should not like the opportunity to pass without my saying something, too. The late Lord Boyle was a great friend of mine for over 30 years and I was very pleased when he was appointed vice-chancellor of the university which had been in my former constituency. During the 11 years it was there, I was a member of the court and council, and saw at first hand how he served the purposes of education in Leeds University with great distinction. He served not only the university but the city, particularly in the sphere of music. We shall all remember his speeches. I remember many when we faced each other from opposite Front Benches in another place. But although we faced each other from opposite Front Benches, I know that there was very little difference in our outlook towards education.

The speech that I shall remember most in your Lordships' House was made in December 1979—nearly two years ago. Very few people realise the circumstances in which that speech was made. A few weeks previously Lord Boyle had had a serious operation. He took the rather unusual decision to come to convalesce in a London hotel. Having got as far as that London hotel he could not resist coming to your Lordships' House. That day we were debating overseas students' fees. In the afternoon he said to me, "I can't be here and not speak. I am going back to my hotel to rest for a few hours and then I shall come back to speak". I told him I thought it was rather unwise but he insisted upon speaking. He not only spoke but he spoke at midnight.

I am very pleased indeed that we are paying tribute in an education debate to one who felt so strongly about education. He was a great man who never lost his temper, who was compassionate and who always saw the other person's point of view. I do not want to go into detail about this particular Bill. That has already been done. I know, however, that it is a Bill after Lord Boyle's own heart. One of the things he did at Leeds University soon after he arrived was to set up a special committee to consider the needs of disabled students in Leeds University. Many changes were made to the structure of the university so that disabled people could get about the campus better.

I wish this Bill well. What is important is not what is said in the Bill but the spirit in which it is put into operation. I hope that this Bill will not be only a piece of paper but will become a reality within the next few years.

My Lords, I, too, welcome this Bill. I make no apologies about speaking on one subject which has not been considered very much in any of our debates. I think that it should be mentioned, even though I am interested, as many other Members of your Lordships' House are, in the business which is to follow.

This Bill will not be crippled at birth, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said. This seemed to me to be rather an unfortunate expression about a Bill concerning handicapped children. However, I am very worried about one matter which has not been mentioned; namely, the staffing which will be necessary. To be very parochial for a minute, I made a speech at Second Reading, about which my noble friend Lady Young was very kind, concerning a new special school. Because of the nature of the school—where we take in children from normal schools although they remain on the school roll of that normal school and therefore they are not on the official roll of our school—we are very worried that when the figures for the teacher-pupil ratio go to the Department of Education and Science, as I believe is the case with every single special school, the computer there will go stark, raving bananas. It will probably leap through the roof. It will give the officials an awful fright. Therefore, I hope that whoever is in the department at the time will look kindly at those figures.

Even more important than that are wider questions concerning teacher training. We have to consider the integration of less fortunate children into our normal schools. I am thinking of children we have classified before as ESN(M)—those with minor learning difficulties and those suffering from behavioural problems. There is a very real danger that teachers, who we know are very conscientious, will have so little experience of these children that they will tend to classify them as either stupid, gauche, or even as completely "Bolshie" and therefore will place them on one side and will not encourage them. They may even look upon them as insolent. This can be countered to a certain extent during initial treacher training but I do not think that this situation is very satisfactory. The teachers who are being trained at the moment will not come into the mainstream for another year or so, and we hope that this legislation will come into effect before then.

There is an even more important fact: that practical experience for teachers of what I might describe as children in a normal school is fairly important before they come across handicapped children. By realising what they are looking for in the ordinary child and spotting the mischievous types, they will be more wary and will spot the differences when they come into contact with handicapped children. The answer to this problem is in-service training. Indeed, in-service training must be the answer to both problems. But the important question is: where on earth is the money going to come from? As a result of the present cutbacks, I believe that Lincolnshire recently announced that it is closing down all its teacher centres. Other local authorities are having to follow suit and greatly cut their resources.

Although my noble friend has told us that it will not cost very much, under this Bill I can see extra costs creeping into the budgets of local education authorities because of the very detailed assessment and appeal procedures which this Act gives rise to. I believe therefore that there is a very real danger that teachers will not be prepared to cater for children coming from special schools into ordinary schools. I hope that my noble friend will be an ally on behalf of education and on behalf particularly of—under this Bill we must not call them special children any more but children with learning difficulties. When she is in Cabinet perhaps my noble friend will remember some of the things that have been said in your Lordships' House today. I wish this Bill well and I wish my noble friend well. I hope she will remember us when the hard talking takes place in another place.

My Lords, I should like to make a few comments on the Third Reading of this Bill. I shall be brief but I wish to emphasise the points made about Lord Boyle. I knew him when I first entered local politics. I was one of the councillors in the Handsworth division. Although we represented different points of view in different parties, before he became a Member of your Lordships' House Lord Boyle was thought highly of in the Handsworth division. He involved himself with the ethnic minorities there and showed his humane attitude towards the disadvantaged, even if they were not suffering from physical or mental disadvantages.

May I touch briefly on what was said about the 16 year-olds by the noble Baroness in her reply to me on a previous occasion. I must remind her that the education of the 16 year-olds and above has been regarded as something of a privilege for those with special needs. Further education is certainly not available for all those who wish to take advantage of it. According to the latest reports in the Library, which go up to 1978, the number of boys and girls who are staying on at school after the age of 16 is very small. We have to recognise clearly that the child who is going to be disadvantaged in the future will in the main be a child with a multiple handicap. All the statistics point to the fact that straightforward disabilities are disappearing. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Mrs. Warnock felt that there was a need to blur what we call the different categories. As was said by the previous speaker, the children who are suffering from multiple handicaps—who perhaps are partially sighted and suffering from severe spasticity, or who are deaf and also suffering from cystic fibrosis—are those who are now having to be catered for inside special schools.

Obviously, as the noble Lord who has just spoken said, these children need a tremendous amount of resources. They need extra special teaching and these will be the children whom we shall have to think of more and more in the future. Medical science keeps these children alive and, unfortunately, some of them are very seriously disadvantaged. I have enjoyed very much listening to the great experience in special education, including that of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who obviously speaks from a great deal of experience and knowledge. What I think we have to consider when we are thinking seriously about the Bill is that there will be many children who are at school today who will not be able to play their part in life in employment. Many more children will be unable to find employment, even if the employment position, as we all hope, improves in the near future. Therefore, we shall have to look to those older age groups from 16 years of age upwards for the development, not of special courses to fit them for future employment in a sheltered workshop—though that might be desirable—but of what are now called self-help skills. Such skills will lead the boys and girls to greater independence so that they will be able to manage alone when their parents die.

So it is in society's own interests that we emphasise the importance of the education which these people will require. It is economically more satisfactory for them to be able to stay in the community. Even if they are not earning any money at all it is cheaper for them to stay in the community, as well as being more humane. The development of what we might call further education might have to be the development of these skills, and it is these skills that will be given to what we call the young adults that will enable them to integrate into society because it is at young adulthood that difficulties arise with handicapped people of all description.

We look at this Bill and hope that the deliberations which have taken place in this House will perhaps enthuse those outside. Although as I said at a previous stage of the Bill I do not think it goes far enough, one has to accept that in the circumstances the Government do not intend it to go any further, and all we can hope is that people outside will work to the maximum of their ability to give greater independence to all handicapped people.

My Lords, I apologise that I was called away, but I intend to make only three points. One is to pay a tribute to the men and women who for many years have devoted their lives to teaching the underprivileged and the handicapped children in difficult schools. I should think that everybody in this Chamber who has shown an interest in education at some time or other has been to see the devoted work given by these men and women to handicapped children. My second point is one that I mentioned in a brief speech and I intend to be brief again. Anyone who has been a practical teacher—and I have had experience right through the gamut of education—knows that small classes are needed to give the care and devotion. For Heaven's sake! within reason whatever it costs the nation we shall not lose by having smaller classes if they are going to be mixed classes with handicapped pupils in them. Let us not pass this by as being merely a light point but a point that emanates from a democratic Parliament; our first priority is to have small mixed classes.

My last point is one which has not been touched on yet. I think we shall need some peripatetic nurses and dental and medical personnel attending these schools. There is a first-class dental report out at the moment on school children and their dental care. This is particularly of paramount importance in the case of underprivileged children, and therefore I hope we shall be looking at the nursing and the medical profession in relation to these new classes that will come into existence. The House is so well informed that I need not speak any more on these points because I know that they will have gone home.

My Lords, we have had in effect a Second Reading debate, and I should like to correct one slight misunderstanding. I am sure the House will understand that I would not in any way wish to mislead anybody at any stage of the Bill on the American experience. I think it is always rather difficult to compare different systems. I took the best advice that I could and I should like to absolve my advisers from any intention to mislead anyone. What is important is that in the important area of confidentiality I believe we have gone as far as we can to meet what we recognise to be the concerns of parents.

Another point that I should like to make is that, like many others who have spoken, I wish that we could have done more in this Bill, but what is important is that the Bill makes a start on creating a new framework for children with special educational needs and we all wish to see it on the statute book as soon as possible.

I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now further considered.

My Lords, I understand that Amendment No. 103 has been moved formally so we start with Amendment No. 103D.

My Lords, I have no doubt that my recollection of events which occurred at a very late hour on Thursday, when we last dealt with this Bill, is perhaps as hazy as the recollections of other noble Lords. Certainly we were in a fairly confused state—a state of confusion which was perhaps partly added to by the assistance which we received at the last moment from the noble Lord the Chief Whip when we endeavoured to adjourn the House in the midst of one amendment and halfway through another, but my recollection is that this Amendment No. 103D, standing in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady White, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and myself was spoken to partly by my noble friend Lady White in the course of moving earlier Amendments Nos. 103A, 103B and 103C, with which it is closely related, although I do not think she got as far as formally moving it.

I do not think it is necessary for me to say much more about this amendment, save this: I think the answer given to us by the noble Earl to an earlier amendment regarding the requirement to prepare a map was so very satisfactory, making it utterly clear that there was not to be this onerous burden on the National Park Authorities to produce, print and make available for sale an entirely new map of the area every year. That being so, we were glad to withdraw an earlier amendment.

That being the position, the case for this amendment becomes doubly strong. This amendment requires merely that the appropriate authority should prepare an annual report of changes in the character of the area as defined on the map. It does not need to be a detailed map; it could be a written document containing statistics, and those statistics I am sure are very necessary. They would certainly be helpful to the Countryside Commission, a body which has a continuing duty to advise Government, and would certainly have to advise them on the question of the implementation of Clause 40 of this Bill. In order to give effective advice it will need this kind of information coining in from the national park authorities and it will need to collate that information.

One of the problems which I think has bedevilled our discussions in regard to Exmoor, and other areas where areas of moorland are being restored for agriculture, is that we have had bandied about a whole series of different figures at different times. There has been a great deal of disagreement as to how much of Exmoor has been lost, how much has not been lost, and how much is likely to be lost in the future. I think therefore—since it is not only Exmoor that is concerned; the Northumberland National Park is in the same situation and the North Yorkshire Moors and many other areas of outstanding landscape and scenic beauty are under some threat from agricultural development—it is surely absolutely essential that the process should be monitored on a regular basis. I am absolutely sure it will be monitored by the various national parks, and since they will be monitoring and collecting this information it is also important that they should prepare an annual report so that all these various changes can be collected together and collated and considered by the appropriate bodies, the Countryside Commission, the Government and all others concerned, when deciding what other steps to take. I do not think I need say any more about this amendment, save that it seems to me to have become even more necessary than it was since we had the reply to the earlier amendment. I beg to move.

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has said, we debated this question when discussing earlier amendments. Like him, I am sure the national park authorities will prepare these figures annually. I would have thought it would be a dereliction of their general duty if they did not. Therefore, I see absolutely no harm in their having a duty under this Bill to prepare an annual report which will be available to the public. When we left this point last week the Government seemed to be of the view that none of these amendments were necessary. I would hope that the noble Earl if not able to be filled with more kindness and sweetness and light at this earlier hour and actually to accept the amendment, can at least tell us that the Government in the general discussion on regulations or whatever will be prepared under this part of the Bill will encourage the national park authorities to make these figures available annually, so that we are not forced to extract them from the Government by way of written parliamentary Question, which seems the only alternative.

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend, Lord Hunt, who particularly represents the parks' interest, and from this Bench, I would just like to say that we are entirely behind this amendment. I think the case has been adequately put by the mover and I need not put it again.

My Lords, as I said on Thursday night, there is very little difference between us on these four amendments. If I might just recap, on the first one, unfortunately, we were unable really to look at it because "in the opinion of the authority" was omitted in the amended version. With regard to the second one, as Lord Winstanley has kindly said, I was able to put everybody's mind at rest by saying that I would put on record the Government's view that it would be completely unnecessary and indeed it would be grossly extravagant for every national park authority to prepare and publish a revised map each year, but we think the authorities ought to be bound by statute to review the situation annually. I think that satisfied everybody on that one. The third one was about the Countryside Commission, and again I was able to say that that is exactly what we had in mind but did not want to make it statute.

Now I come to the proposition that each national park authority should be required to prepare a annual report of the changes in the character of the area defined on the map. The effect in practice would be to increase the administrative burden on the authorities, because they would be obliged to prepare annually a report of the changes rather than carry out an annual review which might be no more than an internal exercise of a limited kind. It is really that limited kind which seems to make it necessary to put this legally binding statute on the authorities. However, I would very happily give the Government's view, and put it in Hansard that it is the Government's view, that it would be advisable to have an annual report and to make sure that the national parks authorities realise this. I hope with that undertaking perhaps the noble Lord will not wish to press this particular amendment.

My Lords, it seems to me that that gets us a little further. We have those words of the noble Earl on record and I have no doubt that they will be read and heeded by the national parks as appropriate. All that is of concern to me and to the other noble Lords and Ladies who are concerned about this amendment is that it is absolutely important that we should have regular and continuing information on precisely what is happening to areas of land of outstanding scenic beauty. That is something we have not had on a regular basis before. The noble Earl's words assure me that that information will be regularly available when required. He knows that it will be required fairly frequently. On that understanding I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 103.

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 104. This amendment provides a statutory right of representation for district councils on national park authorities. At present such councils are represented on park authorities only on a grace and favour basis at the invitation of one of the councils concerned. I am sure this amendment commends itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.

My Lords, I moved a similar amendment to this at Committee stage in this House and was glad to withdraw it on an undertaking by the Government that they would move one of their own, and I am very glad now to see it. There are indeed cogent arguments for having a clause of this type. The most direct one is that the district councils now have the staff and experience to handle development control matters in the whole of the rest of England and Wales, and it is sensible that there should be provision for them to join effectively in the discharge of those responsibilities by the county councils in the case of national parks. There is the further reason that district councils have a major responsibility for the health and wellbeing and prosperity of the local economy. That is a purpose which many people feel should be discharged by the national park authorities although it is not statutorily laid upon them. To the extent that districts will as of right be represented on the national park authorities it will be easier for that role to be discharged effectively.

The other function which it is important to have integrated into national park authorities is the function of the housing authorities and those functions are held by the district councils. There is the further reason that the district councils do contain representatives closer to the grass roots than do the county councils, and there is a greater likelihood that the representatives of the district councils on the national park authorities will be resident in the parks themselves. So for all those reasons I think the clause is welcome to the Association of District Councils. As my noble friend says, they have had a place there by grace of the county councils, and in some cases they have had more places than they will get under this clause; they would have preferred more. But this is a satisfactory compromise between the county councils and the district councils.

The House might care to know that this Friday the Association of District Councils are holding a seminar at the offices of the Countryside Commission in Cheltenham. I shall be meeting about 40 or so members of the district councils and we shall be discussing how best to discharge the responsibilities now being laid on them by this clause.

My Lords, I wonder if I might add a further word to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Sandford about representation. I woud ask my noble friend Lord Avon to answer this when he comes to reply. When it comes to the appointments by the Minister—and I think he has to deal with quite a large number of appointments—will he bear in mind the desirability of appointing people whose livelihood and interests are in that area?

My Lords, there is no reduction at all envisaged in the present level of appointments made by the Secretary of State to such authorities and in no case will district council representation fall below its current de facto level. In fact, there will probably be a slight increase in representation on two national park authorities, the Peak Park and the Lake District. I am sure that the points made by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderney will be borne in mind. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandford for his comments.

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 105, and to speak to Amendment No. 105B, and the consequential Amendment No. 105C. Amendment No. 105, and the earlier Amendment No. 93, concern the conservation duties of water authorities, internal drainage boards and the appropriate Minister or Ministers.

Noble Lords will recall that in Clause 36 this House made provision to extend Section 22 of the Water Act 1973, which places water authorities and the appropriate Minister or Ministers under certain duties towards conservation. The effect of Clause 36 was to extend those duties to internal drainage boards as well and to add a duty of consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council. I shall explain that point later. Section 22 requires the NCC to notify water authorities of areas of special scientific interest, and Clause 36 added a duty for the water authorities and the internal drainage boards in turn to consult the NCC before they carry out any works or operations, except emergency operations, which they think likely to be harmful to the special interest of any areas notified to them.

Turning now to the new Amendment, No. 105, this is a new clause which incorporates Clause 36, so that Clause 36 itself is no longer necessary, and the purpose of Amendment No. 93 was to take it out. But the new clause, Amendment No. 105, is not only a replacement of Clause 36; it also amends another subsection of Section 22 of the Water Act—subsection (1). In respect of the conservation of natural beauty and of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest, it changes the duty of the water authorities, internal drainage boards and the appropriate Minister or Ministers from a duty to "have regard" to conservation to a more positive duty to "further" conservation. Since the rest of the new clause is the same as Clause 36, this is really the point for consideration.

It may be useful to refer to the origins of this matter. At Committee stage, on 17th February (Official Report, cols. 604–609), we debated a new clause put down by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, proposing various amendments to the Water Act 1973, one of which would have required the water authorities to "take steps to preserve" natural beauty et cetera in place of the duty to "have regard" to it in Section 22. I said then that the Government did not honestly think that we ought to ask the water authorities to do more than what Section 22 requires. But the matter was raised again in another place and the Government were persuaded to reconsider the position.

While the Government still do not think it appropriate to place the water authorities in exactly the same position as regards conservation as they are already under as regards recreation in Section 20 of the Water Act—that is, they are under a duty to "take steps" et cetera—we decided that it would be right to go so far as to give them a positive duty to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and wildlife in the course of their work, and the Commons so agreed and this amendment provides for that.

However, the amendment does not require the water authorities or IDBs to do anything inconsistent with the Acts to which they work; on the contrary it only applies so far as may be consistent with the purposes of the Water Act 1973 and the Land Drainage Act 1976. To exercise their functions in a way which furthers conservation will be one of their duties, albeit a secondary one, and the bodies will have to use their own judgment.

Turning back briefly to the consultation with the NCC, which as I have explained is in Clause 36 already, anxiety was expressed in the Commons about consulting over maintenance operations. We gave an undertaking that we did not mean to let this new clause impose an unnecessary burden on those concerned and that we would initiate discussions and publish guidelines to clarify the best way in which the NCC can be consulted by the water authorities and IDBs without cumbersome work. Steps are already in hand to do that.

There are also the two very minor amendments to which I should briefly like to refer—namely, Nos. 105B and 105C. These are technical amendments which correct an error on the part of Amendment No. 105B which has, in fact, been copied from Clause 36. Section 22(3) of the Water Act refers to land:

"not being land for the time being managed as a nature reserve"

The amendments ensure that the entire expression is deleted and not just the words which appeared in Amendment No. 105, which would have left Section 22(3) of the Water Act in a nonsensical state. I beg to move.

moved Amendment No. 105A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 105:

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Buxton of Alsa. He has said that we do not stand here just to represent ourselves or our interests. However, I think that one could almost say that if one rises and supports this interest, one is rising, standing and supporting the farming community. To a certain extent the Ministry of Agriculture forms the lives and the economic policy of those in the farming community. Let us be quite honest and open about it. Up to now the Ministry of Agriculture has been the most superb instrument for producing food and encouraging farmers. It has been the best example of the corporatist state. It has done what the Japanese MITI does for Japanese industry. It has produced this co-operation between the farming community and the Government, and it has done it extremely effectively under both Governments. However, I suspect that it is now becoming insensitive. Unless it becomes more sensitive to public pressures and to the public's concern for conservation, I think that we farmers will be on the receiving end of the public's wrath, and I, as a farmer, do not want that to happen. I want a nice easy, cushy life if I can possibly get it. That is why I rise and I very much hope that this amendment will be supported by the House, and that my noble friend Lord Avon will be able to accept it.

This amendment has been inspired by the Countryside Commission. Before any Minister suggests that it is improperly drafted and does not make sense, I would point out that it has, in fact, been drafted by the Treasury Solicitor. If the Minister is about to say that it does not make sense, then he had better sack the Treasury Solicitor.

I very much want to support what my noble friend Lord Buxton said about the polluter paying and the fact that this is the principle of modern legislation—it is an EEC principle. I suspect that if I were better educated I would know of a Latin tag which would encompass that, going back very much longer than European Community legislation. Of course, I am not saying that the agricultural industry is a complete polluter, but I draw this parallel.

If I, as a farmer, allow silage effluent to leach into a stream, not only am I prosecuted very smartly, but I also have to install some very expensive and competent method of catching that silage effluent. I am not allowed to pollute the countryside or effect damage to my neighbours by silage effluent, and quite rightly so. I believe that 1,500 tonnes of grass silage produces the amount of effluent which has the same biological oxygen demand as the untreated raw sewage of a city the size of Bristol. Consequently, one can see why one is not allowed to do this.

Therefore, if the Ministry of Agriculture gives a grant for land drainage which can have devastating effects in some areas—Halvergate Marshes is obviously one of them, where the taxpayers are being encouraged to spend in grant £1 million to drain these marshes and then another £1 million not allowing one-fifth of them to be used, at the same time increasing the value of the farmer's land from about £500 an acre to about £2,000 an acre, with very little expenditure on his part—surely those who benefit (that is, the farmers, who admittedly do not pay even the majority of the internal drainage board rate, and the farming Ministry, which encourages it) should pay for the environmental damage which ensues.

Another example of the damage which can be caused by internal drainage boards is at Horsey Mere, where deep drainage has released sodium sulphide, which is then oxidised, producing sulphuric acid and ferric hydroxide. That sounds incredibly complicated and like one of those diagrams with CO₂, or whatever it is, all over it. I am certainly not a chemist and I lifted those terms straight out of a book. However, the effect is absolutely catastrophic. It produces a deep, dirty, orange sludge in the water. The water in other parts of the Broads and even in the partially drained areas of these grazing marshes is absolutely gin clear. It contains pretty plants and sticklebacks. I know that it is not some great, grand thing which everybody can see or can be shown on television, but it is part of our inheritance and part of our surroundings. We simply cannot continue chucking into the water vast quantities of ferric hydroxide, which has the effect of killing all the fish and all the small water plants; the reedbeds up to two inches up are surrounded by this dirty, nasty, red sludge.

Another example is the North Kent Marshes from Gravesend to Whitstable, which are an internationally important home for wintering wildfowl. Thirty per cent. of these grazing marshes has now been converted to arable land. It has been done on the piecemeal system: 100 acres there, 20 acres here, 80 acres there, so perhaps it was not noticed to start with. But when all the little bits are added together it becomes very noticeable. These are two examples of damage which can be done by internal drainage boards where grants should be more readily withheld and certainly paid for by the Ministry of Agriculture for the use of conservation.

That is why I rise to second the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Buxton of Alsa and to persuade your Lordships to agree with this amendment. Finally, if the Ministry of Agriculture is unable or unwilling to pay or contribute, I do not believe that the duties which are put upon the Ministry in this Bill can be taken very seriously.

My Lords, I should like to support the two noble Lords opposite and this amendment. I must say that I think we are getting into some fairly difficult waters—if that is not the wrong way of putting it when talking about these particular authorities. The Government appear to be saying two things at once. First, they are saying that the primary duties of water authorities and IDBs are unchanged and all that is being suggested in this clause is that these authorities can do certain things as long as they do not conflict with those duties. This is what they are really saying to the NFU to keep them happy. At the same time the Government are saying to conservationists, "Well, lads, this gives you everything you want and every IDB in the country will be bursting to spend money on conservation projects as long as they are within the overall remit of the Act of Parliament under which they are working".

Those interpretations—both of which were included in the noble Earl's opening speech and one of which will, I am sure, be included in his reply—cannot both be the case in practice. Either IDBs are going to spend money to mitigate the effects of their schemes or they are not. My information is that those responsible for actually implementing this—people working for IDBs, officials working for the Ministry of Agriculture, for example—do not think that this clause, as currently drafted anyway, would put any obligation on them to pick up the tab if a landowner in the middle of a drainage scheme decided that he would prefer the land not to be drained and would like to enter into a management agreement to preserve it in its undrained state—and therefore in a state of interest in nature conservation. As I understand it, MAFF officials have said outside this House and in other places that that is not the sort of case for which this clause would make IDBs liable to pay. That would be, as we were discussing last week, yet another thing that the conservationists would have to pay for.

In fiddling around with the wording of these clauses, I really do think that the Government are trying to have it both ways in respect of the two competing lobbies who have been battling at their door over this. Rather than do that, I would have hoped that the Government might have the courage to come down a little bit more firmly on one side or the other. To come down with this amendment and put a little bit of a check on internal drainage boards would not, I believe, be asking too much even in the terms of the Government's own political philosophy, which, as I understand it, is to provide some checks on public expenditure.

Last year IDBs asked the Government for grants for 50 per cent. more schemes than they did in 1978. They spent £17 million on land drainage works. Many of those operations caused serious ecological damage to some of Britain's richest wetlands. It may be argued that while this is something, apart from the grant from MAFF, for which farmers—because they are on IDBs and are the ratepayers who contribute to IDBs—are really paying. Farmers really make the decisions of IDBs because landowners appoint people to these organisations. But people might say that they are also paying the rates and so that is only fair. But of course that is not the case. As a recent article in the New Scientist pointed out, in the case of one IDB in Yorkshire, 98 per cent. of the land is agricultural but in 1976 agricultural ratepayers paid only 7 per cent. of the drainage rates. The other 93 per cent. of the drainage rates were paid for by urban ratepayers. So in the case of schemes such as these. if that IDB is typical, as to half the money the farmers are spending 93 per cent. is coming from the poor old urban ratepayers in the IDB area, and the other 50 per cent. from the rest of us, in taxpayers' money from MAFF. On top of that, apart from the people sitting on IDBs, there seems to be virtually no control over what they spend or how they spend it. I understand—and maybe the noble Earl can confirm this—that until very recently IDBs did not even think they were covered by Section 11 of the Countryside Act, which is meant to lay a duty on everyone including bodies such as theirs, to have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside.

If the Government really took seriously anything they say to the rest of us about controlling public expenditure they would welcome this amendment with open arms. But I do not believe they do take things seriously when it comes to farmers and landowners. I think that what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, about the way things will appear outside this House is actually going to prove quite an accurate reflection of the outcome of debates on this Bill; where farmers will be getting their cake and being able to eat it and to spend the money somebody else paid to buy it at the same time. We are getting ourselves into a nonsensical situation and I hope that the Government might try to rescue themselves a little from it by accepting their noble friends' amendment.

My Lords, I very much agree with the argument which was put by my noble friend Lord Buxton of Alsa, and I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that the NFU and the CLA would do very well to heed his warnings. All the time there is this peril of having planning control brought down on farming and agricultural operations. We already have a specific directive from the EEC that such things as the draining of the Halvergate Marshes would be subject to an environment impact assessment. I myself do not believe that Amendment No. 105A is necessary if the Government are wholehearted—which is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was making —about what they put into Amendment No. 105. If they are wholehearted about that and if that is the philosophy which they have grasped and intend to enforce, then I think the House should know why it is not going to be applied to the problem of the Halvergate Marshes. If it were applied then everybody would know that the Government were in earnest in proposing Amendment No. 105 to your Lordships' House. If it is not going to be applied to the Halvergate Marshes then, for heavens sake, why not?

My Lords, from my serried rank on this Bench I would like to support the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa. 1 was unable to be present at the earlier debates and so I shall not speak in detail but I should like to make one or two points of principle. Am I wrong in thinking, as the law would stand without this amendment, that there is nothing to stop (except the paying for it) the entire surface of the Broads being reclaimed for more efficient farming? Or is that a misconception? It does seem to me that this is always a question of degree. Clearly, without the fenlands and Lincolnshire we should be much poorer than we are. There was a time when it was absolutely right to reclaim. That time is certainly at question now in a number of different areas. The Broads are a very special area, not only from the point of view of the birds there, which are unique, but also from the point of view of the fish and marsh plants.

It seems to me that there should be a restriction on the ease of getting rid of them for money—which is what this really amounts to. It seems to me that the kind of restriction put here in this amendment is a fairly effective one. It is that the IDB has two duties. One duty is to the farmer, but the other is to be cost-effective in not spoiling too much and having to pay if they do. This seems to me to be a very wise and suitable restrictive measure and I very much hope that this amendment will be carried.

My Lords, I am certainly not going into the history of the reclamation of the Fens, interesting and important though that is. All I want to do is to make it clear to the noble Earl, before he replies, that there is support for this amendment in all parts of your Lordships' House. I do not want to repeat the arguments so admirably put by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, and reinforced by the noble Lords, Lord Melchett and Lord Sandford. I believe the case is utterly clear. This amendment gives body and real significance to the Government's own amendment, Amendment No. 105. Without this amendment to the Government's amendment, I am of the opinion that Amendment No. 105 becomes no more than the paper upon which it is written. I hope that we shall hear some pretty clear assurances with regard to this amendment or the intentions which lie behind it.

My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging debate on this amendment, which is narrow in itself. I should like first to take up some of the remarks by my noble friend Lord Buxton about agriculture, generally. I do not think I need remind him that the world population has increased by 50 per cent. since the war; that production of food is vital to the nation, otherwise we would have to import, and it does save on the balance of payments, so there is importance in agriculture. It is not just for the benefit of farmers as individual people but it is for the benefit of the nation as a whole. The importance of food production is foremost in our minds, and let us get it clear that agriculture is essential to the nation.

I have been listening to both ways; lack of courage and balance. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who produced and stimulated this amendment in the first place—and I spoke to it when I introduced our amendment—now seems to be switching slightly over to the farmers' side. We think that this is a good amendment and we think it has answered all the comments made previously in the House and in the other place. Before answering the amendment in detail, may I say something about the Halvergate marshes. I do not want to say too much because it is, although not sub judice, at the moment under discussion.

There is a case of whether to hold a public inquiry, which will be a decision to be taken by the Minister of Agriculture. But a scheme of management agreements from the Broads Authority to conserve the highest quality landscape in 1,100 acres has been under negotiation locally, and the Broads Authority still have finally to decide their attitude towards the drainage scheme in this light.

If they are content they would receive 75 per cent. grant aid from the Countryside Commission, as the Secretary of State for the Environment announced in his speech to the national parks on 18th September. On the other hand if they decided that they were not content, that would be a different position, and it would seem to me, and I am sure the House would agree, quite wrong for a Minister to decide about intervening with a public inquiry before the appropriate authority, the local authority, the Broads Authority, have finished considering their position.

A specific case was brought up about an IDB which was financed mainly by urban ratepayers. This is most unusual. It does happen when there is a central electricity GB power station in an IDB with a very high rateable value. However, in most IDBs the rates are mainly paid by farmers. Certainly at Halvergate the cost of the scheme will be met almost wholly by farmers, who will pay an annual rate of £20 per acre per annum for the next 20 years.

My Lords, the noble Earl said that in most IDBs the rates are mainly paid by farmers. Could he quantify the "most" and "mainly", because to give us that statement the Ministry must presumably have worked out the figures in detail'?

My Lords, I have not got the detailed figures in front of me at the moment. The cost of the scheme will be met almost wholly, Yes. I will try to get them to you before I sit down if we have them with us.

May I come back to the amendment moved by my noble friends. I would remind you that the new clause, the clause we are talking about, 105, is

"Duties of water authorities et cetera, with regard to nature conservation and the countryside".

This question of the powers of water authorities and internal drainage boards to incur expenditure as a result of the new clause which is introduced by Amendment No. 105 was raised at a Committee stage in another place. At that time my honourable friend the Minister who spoke, Mr. Michael Roberts, said:

"The honourable Member wanted an assurance that IDBs have legal power to spend money in pursuance of their existing conservation obligation and that MAFF has power to grant aid them. They already have that power. The new clause [that is the clause embodied in Amendment No. 105] will give them a further obligation and the power to spend accordingly".

I can only spell out in greater detail the assurance given then by the Government; namely, that in carrying out work in pursuance of their powers under the Land Drainage Act 1976 these drainage authorities already have the power to incur expenditure on conservation and amenity, and that subject to the normal rules about reasonableness and so on any such capital expenditure will be eligible for grant aid under Sections 90 and 91 of that Act.

To the extent that this amendment is seeking to give that power it is unnecessary because that power is conveyed by the new clause itself. The amendment, No. 105A, as I see it does not therefore achieve anything My noble friend Lord Buxton seemed to argue, however, that the purpose of the amendment was to give wider powers to water authorities and internal drainage boards to incur expenditure which does not directly arise from the exercise of their function under the Land Drainage Act 1976, and even to make revenue expenditure grant aidable.

I have to say that the Government could not accept provisions of this kind because it would require the water authorities, internal drainage boards, and the Minister to take action and incur expenditure not consistent with their functions under the Land Drainage Act, and that is of course the Act to which this particular clause refers.

May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that there are no more exact figures available at the moment than I gave. I hope with these explanations my noble friend will see that his amendment is not necessary and will accept the assurance that the Government are wholeheartedly behind Amendment No. 105 just as they are behind all the clauses in this Bill.

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, could he say whether that means that the Ministry of Agriculture with its grant system could not be asked, or will not pay, for anything towards management agreements to offset the damage done by deep draining, or some such similar operation, by an internal drainage board?

No, my Lords, the grants are only for the improvement of agriculture, so they would not have the power for that. Incidentally, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, gave me two examples, and I meant to say to him that they would both be covered under the Government clause.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for what he said. Every time he speaks his words give a great deal of assurance. What worries me is that I still do not see us any nearer to the Ministry, and through the Ministry the internal drainage boards and the water authorities, accepting any responsibility in the financial sense for the conservation damage which they cause. Of course, I accept the Minister's assurance and argument about the proper function of the Ministry and the water authorities, but I do not follow it when all other Ministries are allowed to do exactly what we are asking in the same context. I do not know what the functions are as laid down for the Ministry of Transport, but they are perfectly entitled to plant hedges, lovely banks, and broom and everything along the motorways, and this seems to me exactly what we are asking in the case of the Ministry of Agriculture and the water authorities.

On the wider front, I quite see the point, and I have pontificated and lectured about the population explosion and everything else, until everyone is bored with it. Of course the population is rising and will continue to rise, and the need for food will be overwhelming no doubt, but that is exactly what public inquiries are for and exactly why careful assessments have to be made of the economic factors to see whether schemes are viable. In the case of Halvergate and the Broads, I am perfectly prepared to leave a thorough assessment at a public inquiry having been convinced that it is the best scheme that has ever been put up. All I say is that everything I have heard indicates that it is the worst scheme that has ever been put up. Therefore, I hope that if the Minister is to be consistent, with all that implies as my noble friend Lord Sandford said they will listen to the huge weight of opinion from every quarter and follow the proper course, which is to have a public inquiry in that connection.

On the question of an inquiry, as I understood the Minister, if the local authorities, including the Broads Authority, do not reach an agreement then the Minister will probably have such an inquiry. That being the case, I am prepared to withdraw this amendment with the agreement of my noble friend, but in the confident hope—no, confident anticipation—that the Government are going to be consistent in all that they have said in the Act; that they are going to be consistent in the case of Halvergate and the Broads and all the other major schemes around the country. We shall be watching with hawk-like vision every move that is made in this respect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

My Lords, I did not raise a question on this when we were discussing Amendment No. 105A because I thought it would become too confusing, for me if for no one else. When the noble Earl, Lord Avon, was introducing Amendment No. 105 he made some remarks about maintenance and the need for regional water authorities or IDBs to consult with the NCC prior to carrying out maintenance works which would affect sites of special scientific interests, and he said that some concern had been expressed about the matter and that the Government were to publish guidelines on it.

It is worth stressing that maintenance works carried out by regional water authorities can be just as damaging, if not more so, as capital works; that has been the case in the past. For example, where major capital schemes have not been proceeded with by a regional water authority, the work has often been done under the auspices of a maintenance scheme, particularly if the original capital works did not meet cost benefit targets. For example, that happened at Alconbury Brook in Huntingdonshire in the Anglian Water Authority's area. Maintenance work can often cause significant and serious damage; channel maintenance on stretches of the Severn division of the ST Water Authority resulted in the removal of several otter holes. The 1976 Act, which is worded in a similar way to the Land Drainage Act and Water Act and has similar aims, ensures that consultation with the NCC takes place before maintenance work which would affect SSSIs is carried out.

This is therefore a very important issue, and I hope the noble Earl will say that the guidelines which the Government will be issuing—which might be taken, from what he said, to qualify the words in the amendment, and I hope the guidelines will not impose any such qualification on what Parliament has agreed—will be published in draft so they will be available for interested parties (water authorities, the NFU and conservation bodies) to comment on, and that the Government will ensure that the NCC (who, after all, are the people to be consulted) are entirely happy with the guidelines before the Government finalise them.

My second point relates to the clause as a whole and I raise it in response to the noble Earl's comments on the information I wanted about IDBs and the percentage of rates coming from urban or farming interests. His department must have had the figures to have given him a brief which allowed him to say that most of them did; they could not have done that without working it out. I hope he will write to me and let me have the figures on which the statement was based.

My Lords, as regards maintenance and the need for regular consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council, that will be fully covered in the guidelines, and they will be agreed with the NCC before issue.

Will they be published in draft, my Lords, so that interests other than Government agencies may look at them?

While not giving a guarantee to that effect, my Lords, I note what the noble Lord said and I am sure that if at all possible it will be done. In regard to his second point, I will of course write to him.

My Lords, I beg to move.

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 106. I shall, with permission, speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 106B and 106C to the amendment. This is a new clause which relates in part to management agreements offered under the "Sandford" clause, but which also concerns agreements entered into by the Nature Conservancy Council following a notification to the council under Clause 28(3) or Clause 29(4) of the Bill as amended. The new clause requires the NCC or relevant authority to provide in the agreement for payments,

"in accordance with guidance given by Ministers",

and this reflects the original Sandford proposal.

However, as I said last Thursday, the Government have gone further and added provision for arbitration in the event of dispute. Under subsection (3), the offeree will have the right within one month of receiving the offer to require reference to an arbitrator, and the arbitrator is to be appointed by the Secretary of State in default of agreement. In the case of management agreements offered by the NCC—except where capital grant has been refused, in other words the voluntary agreements—the offer can be withdrawn by the council if the arbitrator determines a higher sum. However, in the case of management agreements offered by the NCC or relevant authority following rejection of an application for a farm capital grant, the arbitration decision will be binding. The Government share the view taken by another place that this is a fair approach where it is the council or relevant authority which has taken the initiative to object. The clause provides farmers with a guarantee of reasonable terms when management agreements are offered in the circumstances stated. Discussions are already in progress on the terms of Ministers' financial guidelines, and we expect to be consulting on a draft of such guidelines shortly after Royal Assent to the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 106B and 106C replace the word "arbitrator" with "arbiter" in deference to Scots law; I am advised that arbitrators are not a resident species north of the Border.

My Lords, I beg to move.

My Lords, I beg to move.

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to confirm that the guidelines, when they have been agreed, will be laid before Parliament by statutory instrument? All our discussions indicate that they will be of the greatest importance.

My Lords, may I, for clarification, ask my noble friend a question relating to subsection (3), as I believe one month will be insufficient to consider and possibly initiate an offer, and it seems that the Bill is somewhat unclear as to whether or not the authority is expected to discuss arrangements with the farmer before making the offer? I hope that my interpretation is correct that the offer of one month refers to the final offer of a financial payment and not to the offer of a management agreement, for the very obvious reason that we want time to consider the matter. Can my noble friend confirm that the offer of one month is the final offer?

My Lords, I think that the real evil in this clause was decided by the House last week by a very narrow majority and it would be foolish to re-open that debate. But given that the House and Parliament on the Government's advice have decided on a really disastrously expensive method of protecting important areas for wildlife, it would be reasonable to ask the noble Earl to give us some assurance in a rather more forthcoming way than he did last week to the effect that some additional money at least will be made available to pay for all of this.

In recent months it has become clear that there are a number of areas such as the North Kent Marshes, the Swale Marshes, the Berwyn Mountains, the five proposed SSSIs on the Somerset levels, the Derwent Ings, the Nene Washes, and so on which are capable of agricultural development, and for which there are either actual plans or proposals for major agricultural development schemes. If such areas are to be saved for conservation under this clause, very large sums of money, annually indexed to keep up with inflation, will have to be found to pay farmers.

The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said earlier that the threat of planning controls was hanging over all this huge and expensive edifice if it collapsed and did not do the job. I should not myself have said that it was the threat of planning controls, but rather the much more attractive option of planning controls. It is more attractive because it would provide a much more sensible system. It would be much cheaper to the public and I should have thought that at least on those grounds it might have commended itself to some noble Lords opposite; and lastly it should commend itself to conservationists because it would work, while this system, without huge sums of money, clearly will not work.

I hope that the noble Earl, while he has been very busy getting the replies to the questions that his noble friends asked, will also have had a slight change of heart since last week and will be able to tell us, now that the Secretary of State for the Environment appears to be having a change of heart about aspects of Government policy, that rather more money will be available than the noble Earl suggested last week.

My Lords, with regard to the questions which my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, asked, I am bound to tell my noble friend Lord Sandford that the guidelines regarding the consultations are not expected to become statutory, but I shall certainly look up the point and take a note of it. My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley asked whether the period of one month will refer to the final offer or the first offer and discussion. The answer is that it will refer to the final offer in which a person has the time to accept or reject the final offer.

The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, asked whether I would be more forthcoming than I was last week on the question of the amount of money that would be available. The answer to that is that I will not be more forthcoming, because my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, when speaking in Norwich, admitted that management agreements might be expensive, and he said:

"I shall have to take into account the new responsibilities placed on statutory authorities by the Bill".

I cannot go further than that. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, knows perfectly well that in any financial arrangements with which departments are involved it is necessary to discuss their commitments, both individual and total, in the light of all their expenditure and the Treasury requirements. My right honourable friend has made the position perfectly clear. He said:

"I have many very hard decisions to make about the use of scarce resources".

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would not expect me to go further than that, but if he does expect me to go further than that, I shall not go any further.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wonder whether I may speak again on this point, because, fully expecting the answer, yes, I asked my noble friend the question whether the guidelines will be laid before Parliament by statutory instrument. I should have thought that the House would certainly expect that to be so, in view of the enormous importance that is attached to the question of whether or not the funds will be available to meet the management requirements that will be called for from time to time—myself, I think not very often—under the new clauses introduced by Amendments No. 76 and 101. I think that it is getting close to improper for the House to allow through an amendment such as this without knowing one way or the other whether that particular point will be so. But if my noble friend could increase his assurances to the point of recognising the importance of Parliament seeing these guidelines and approving them before they are introduced and using his best endeavours to ensure that they are laid by statutory instrument, I should be happy to leave it at that. But I do not think that the assurances should be any less weighty than that before we allow the amendment to be incorporated.

My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend says that he is entirely happy to leave it at that, because in fact he was entirely out of order to have spoken again. I can tell him only what I have previously told him and your Lordships; namely, that the drafts will not stipulate any specific sums per acre to be paid in consideration of the restrictions which are imposed. That would be completely inappropriate, as the payments offered, whether by way of annual payments or a capital sum, must depend on individual circumstances and be subject to negotiation. Therefore such draft guidelines as are envisaged will not relate to sums of money, by which my noble friend thinks it is possible to make calculations.