Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 50:

The noble Lord said: We now turn to journalists. Amendment No. 50 is grouped with the Government's Amendment No. 51 which modifies the definition of "journalist" in a way which is agreeable to the Newspaper Society. I support that but my amendment suggests that not everyone who says that he is gathering information in order to have it printed in a book or newspaper is likely to achieve that. Many people believe that they have a good idea and go to a great deal of trouble to carry out investigations which they say will appear in a book. There is a danger that the provision will provide a "get-out" for many people, some of whom will use it as such and some who will be cranks.

I do not believe that the revised wording put forward by the Government in Amendment No. 51 improves the situation. No doubt the definition is better but it does not improve the situation at which Amendment No. 50 is directed. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall deal with both amendments and I am grateful for the noble Lord's comments on both. The definition of "journalism" used in the classificatory exemption in paragraph 4(5) is purpose-based; that is, it exempts activities which are undertaken by a person who intends there to be a journalistic-type publication or disclosure of the direct or indirect results of the research undertaken. The key is that some form of publication, not necessarily immediate or directly related to the precise investigation being undertaken, must be intended.

The amendment would remove that purpose-based concept and substitute one which is apparently more objective but which is, in reality, not helpful. Who, for example, would be the judge of whether publication was "likely"?

The newspaper industry has suggested to us that the drafting of this paragraph could be improved. The Government agree and have tabled an amendment giving substantial effect to the suggestions made to us. We have not been advised by the newspaper industry to move away from a purpose-based definition; indeed, quite the reverse. Our amendment to this paragraph therefore maintains this approach, which we are sure provides greater clarity and is more acceptable to those affected by it.

Our amendment is largely technical and seeks to broaden the scope of the exemption for those who undertake activities related to journalism. It is

30 Jan 2001 : Column 680

designed to ensure that those individuals are excluded from the definition of "private investigator". It is not the intention of the Bill to require the licensing of individuals who undertake activities, as defined in paragraph 4(1), where these activities are related to journalism. Paragraph 4(5) therefore provides the exemption for those activities.

It has been suggested to us by the Newspaper Society that the definition in the Bill is narrow and could be improved. We have reflected on that and agree. The amendment to paragraph 4(5) will broaden the scope of the exemption so that it widens the range of activities. The new text explicitly takes into exemption from regulation activities which are related to artistic, literary or reference material.

I understand where the noble Lord is coming from but, on reflection, we believe that we have got it about right. It is right to suggest that the Newspaper Society is happy with our proposals.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: I suspect that in future anyone accused of "snooping" investigations who is caught in the act will say that when he collected the information or took the photograph he intended to send it to the local paper. If he says that he is entirely free to carry on with that activity. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 51:

    Schedule 2, page 23, line 22, leave out from ("information") to end of line 26 and insert ("exclusively with a view to its use, or the use of information to which it relates, for the purposes of or in connection with the publication to the public or to a section of the public of any journalistic, literary or artistic material or of any work of reference.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 52 and 52A not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 53:

    Schedule 2, page 25, line 11, after ("1967") insert ("is for the time being in force;

( ) any premises in respect of which a licence under paragraph 1 or 4 of Schedule 1 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 53 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 54. Amendment No. 53 is a technical amendment which seeks to ensure that premises which are licensed outside London under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 are covered by the provisions of the Bill. The amendment is designed to achieve consistency and to cover events such as raves, where alcohol may not be present, which take place in London but not elsewhere. On behalf of the Home Office, I confess that this was a technical oversight as it is described today.

I turn to Amendment No. 54 which is again technical in nature. The amendment seeks to ensure that door supervisors who operate at casinos or bingo clubs are excluded from the provisions of the Bill.

30 Jan 2001 : Column 681

Paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 contains provisions relating to door supervisors. Our policy is to require all door supervisors to be licensed by the new authority, regardless of whether they are employed in-house or supply their services under contract. However, for these purposes we restrict the definition of "door supervisors" to those who provide services at pubs and clubs, which we believe are the source of most public concern. Paragraph 8(2) defines what is meant by "licensed premises" in this context, and paragraph 8(3) provides clarificatory exemptions as to what is not meant by that term.

We do not intend the provisions of the Bill to apply to door supervisors who operate at casinos or bingo clubs since personnel who work at those premises are already tightly regulated by the Gaming Act 1968. Unfortunately, the present drafting does not achieve that exclusion and a reference to the exclusion of premises licensed under Part II of the Gaming Act 1968 is required. I hope that the Committee will accept these straightforward, technical amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 53.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am delighted to agree to the remedying of these two technical oversights, particularly as the Minister was kind enough to write to me in some detail to explain that the Government

30 Jan 2001 : Column 682

intended to move these amendments. I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, and for that matter the noble Baroness who was in attendance until recently, for their patience and the way in which they responded to debates during Committee. I also ask the Minister to pass on my appreciation to his officials who have supported him throughout the debates.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I associate myself with the final remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. I am most grateful to the Minister and to those who have supported him.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 54:

    Schedule 2, page 25, line 32, at end insert--

("( ) any occasion on which a licence is in force in respect of the premises under the Gaming Act 1968 and the premises are being used wholly or mainly for the purposes of gaming to which Part II of that Act applies;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

        House adjourned at one minute before eleven o'clock.

30 Jan 2001 : Column 139

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill

Tuesday, 30th January 2001.

The Committee met at half past three of the clock.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): Details of the procedure to be followed in Grand Committee are to be found in the opening passages of Hansard on the first day of Committee on the Bill on 23rd January. I remind Members of the Committee that if there is a Division in the Chamber, the noble Lord speaking should be as brief as possible and we will adjourn for 10 minutes.

Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 87:

    After Clause 9, insert the following new clause--

(" . In the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Act 1996, insert the following section--
"Publication of special educational needs and disability policy.
3A.--(1) Any provider of nursery education who--
(a) is in receipt of grant under the arrangements under section 1; and
(b) is not a maintained school,
shall prepare and publish a special educational needs and disability policy.
(2) Regulations may make provision--
(a) as to the content of the special educational needs and disability policy; and
(b) for the review and amendment of the policy."").

The noble Lord said: As I am on first at this third matinee in the Moses Room, I apologise for the soliloquy that is about to follow. I assure Members of the Committee that it is short, but it may appear greedy in the cluster of new clauses in front of us.

Aware of the ability of the parliamentary draftsman to make silk purses out of sows' ears, my hope is that the Government will accept the principle of what I am trying to do and achieve the desired result with more elegance and economy than I and my advisers have been able to marshal. If the Minister wishes to offer reassurance rather than legislation, I shall of course listen carefully to what she has to say, though the reassurance that it will not rain is rather less reassuring than actually having an umbrella.

I seek three things. The first is to ensure that those who receive public funds to educate three and four year olds have a published policy on special educational needs and disability. The second is to require local authorities to assist agencies funded to

30 Jan 2001 : Column 140

provide nursery education by providing them with appropriate goods and services. The third is to have plans for children with special educational needs or disabilities written into the early years development and childcare plans.

I am well aware that early years plans and policies pay some attention to special needs and that there is for example guidance on having a special educational needs co-ordinator covering the foundation stage. However, there is not a statutory requirement to have the policy which the special educational needs co-ordinator will oversee. Nor is there a statutory requirement to put into mainstream nursery provision the sort of goods and services that will enable children who are a little different from the ordinary run of service users to be included. Finally, I have never been sure that what I shall call, for simplicity's sake, children with disabilities, stand out in the existing guidance from the wider issues of disadvantaged groups and disadvantaged areas. In the plethora of very valuable initiatives for younger children, disabilities can get lost and the educational needs and disability link become a little unclear.

For families with a disabled child at the early years stage, life can be particularly difficult--sans diagnosis, sans prognosis, sans experience and sans the toughness that the passage of years can bring. On the other hand, whatever the eventual diagnosis and prognosis (and for some that can be pretty grim) the early years are precious. My amendments are designed to help ensure that the right support is delivered by the right people in the right way at the right time during those precious early years. I beg to move.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page