Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill

HL Deb 18 June 1986 vol 476 cc956-1004

9.34 p.m.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Masham of Ilton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD STRABOLGI in the Chair.]

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 1:

Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:

("Appointment of authorised representatives of disabled persons.

.—(1) In this Act "authorised representative", in relation to a disabled person, means a person for the time being appointed by or on behalf of that disabled person (in accordance with regulations made under this section) to act as his authorised representative for the purposes of this Act.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide—

1. (a) for the manner in which the appointment of a person as an authorised representative is to be made; and
2. (b) for any such appointment to be notified to the relevant local authority (as defined in the regulations) if made otherwise than by that authority.

(3) Any such regulations—

1. (a) may provide for the parent or guardian of a disabled person under the age of 16 to appoint himself or some other person as the authorised representative of the disabled person (but shall not permit a person under that age himself to appoint a person as his authorised representative); and
2. (b) may, in accordance with subsection (4), provide for the appointment of a person as the authorised representative of 957 a disabled person to be made by, or under arrangements made by, a local authority in a case where the disabled person appears to the authority to be unable to appoint a person as his authorised representative by reason of any mental or physical incapacity;
3. (c) may contain such incidental or supplementary provisions as the secretary of State thinks fit.

(4) Regulations under paragraph (b) of subsection (3) may make provision—

1. (a) for requiring a local authority, for the purpose of enabling them to determine whether a disabled person is unable to appoint a person as his authorised representative as mentioned in that paragraph, to obtain the opinion of a registered medical practitioner;
2. (b) for authorising a local authority, where they determine that a disabled person is so unable, either—
1. (i) themselves to appoint a person as the disabled person's authorised representative, or
2. (ii) to make with any voluntary organisation, person or persons approved by them for the purpose such arrangements as they think fit for such an appointment to be made by the organisation, person or persons concerned;
3. (c) for requiring or authorising a local authority, before determining the question specified in paragraph (a), or (as the case may be) before making any appointment of an authorised representative, or any arrangements, in pursuance of paragraph (b), to consult any of the following, namely—
1. (i) a person or persons appointed by them for the purpose, or
2. (ii) a person or persons falling within any class or description specified in the regulations;
4. (d) for requiring a local authority, in such circumstances as may be specified in the regulations, to review the case of a disabled person whose authorised representative has been appointed in pursuance of paragraph (b) (whether by the local authority or under any arrangements made by them for the purpose of determining whether he is still unable to appoint a person as his authorised representative as mentioned in subsection (3)(b).

(5) Subsections (2) to (4) shall apply, with any necessary modifications. in relation to the termination of the appointment of a person as an authorised representative as they apply in relation to the making of such an appointment.

(6) It is hereby declared that any person exercising under Part II of the 1983 Act or Part V of the 1984 Act—

1. (a) the functions of the nearest relative of a disabled person, or
2. (b) the functions of the guardian of a disabled person received into guardianship under that Part of that Act.

may, if appointed as such in accordance with this section, also act as that person's authorised representative.").

The noble Baroness said: This new clause, like other amendments tabled jointly by myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has been the subject of detailed discussion between my department and the Bill's sponsors. I am grateful for the constructive part which the Bill's sponsors have played in these discussions, and I think that if the Committee accepts the amendments we have jointly proposed we shall finish up with a first-class Bill.

This new clause contains all the provisions previously contained in Clause 1 concerning the appointment of authorised representatives for disabled people. Clause I has been split into two—otherwise, with all the new material it would be inconveniently long. Subsections (1) to (3), (5) and (6) are substantially the same as the provisions in the existing Clause 1.

Subsection (4) sets out in more detail (as promised at Second Reading) how the regulations prescribing the arrangements for the appointment of representatives will operate in the situation where a disabled person cannot appoint a representative because of mental or physical incapacity.

I draw the attention of the Committee to the following particular features of subsection (4). First, the Secretary of State is to be enabled to require local authorities to get a medical opinion before deciding that a disabled person is unable to appoint a representative because of mental or physical incapacity—subsection (4)(a). But he is also to be enabled to require them to consult other people as well; for example, relatives or carers—subsection (4)(c). Exactly how these powers will be used will be the subject of further consultation.

If a local authority determines that a disabled person is unable to appoint a representative, there will be a power to authorise them in regulations either to appoint representatives themselves—subsection (4)(b)(i)—or to set up schemes under which voluntary bodies can do so—subsection (4)(b)(ii). If local authorities appoint representatives themselves, it will be possible under the regulations to enable or require them to consult people appointed by themselves for the purpose or, for example, some sort of local panel, before doing so.

I accept that in an ideal world one would not want the local authorities—the providers of social services—also to be in the business of appointing representatives to argue disabled persons' cases for the provision of such services. But, given the practicalities, I hope that the Committee will accept that local authorities will have to be involved in the appointment process where disabled people are not able themselves to appoint, and that the safeguards provided should be sufficient to produce a satisfactory system.

Subsection (4)(d) will enable the Secretary of State to require local authorities to review their decision that a disabled person is unable to appoint a representative if they have reason to believe that his circumstances have changed. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has some amendments later on which are relevant to this clause. However, I preferred to move the clause on its own in order to allow him to move his amendments before I spoke to them. That seemed to be a courtesy.

I commend the new clause to the Committee. I think that it provides a workable framework for the appointment of authorised representatives of disabled people. I beg to move.

Lord Ennals

First, I must thank the noble Baroness for her courtesy because I shall want to move certain amendments later on. However, I wish to welcome most warmly the initiative in the tabling of this amendment both by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. I should like to pay tribute to those officials not only within the department but also of the voluntary organisations who have taken a very active interest in the matter. As I am in a sense speaking as the chairman of MIND, which has a very close interest in this matter and whose clients stand to gain greatly from what has been done in Clause I, I should like to mention William Bingley, John Healey and Peter Mitchell of MIND and RADAR who have played very important roles and spent many hours producing this great improvement to the Bill.

I want to press strongly that the sooner representatives are recognised in the terms of this Bill in relation not only to social services provided by local authorities but also health authority services, to which I shall come later, the better it will be. Therefore, I am pressing for speedy action. Not only is this a good new clause, but I want the action to be taken on it as quickly as possible.

If and when representation is extended to health authority services, it is crucial that the arrangements for the appointment, and the termination of that appointment, notified to the relevant authorities are as simple as possible. When a representative has to be appointed for a disabled person I hope it will be possible, for instance, for such an appointment, say by a local authority, to be recognised by any relevant health authority without the latter feeling obliged to go through the appointment process themselves, so that once we have been able to establish who is the representative this will be able to apply both for local authorities and also for health authorities. This is an important key concept of representation for disabled people, whether they have mental or physical incapacities, and I warmly welcome the initiative to bring about this compromise.

9.45 p.m.

Baroness Trumpington

In my over-zealousness to be polite to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I totally forgot to say that I was moving No. 1 with Amendment No. 15 which is a purely technical amendment to go with Amendment No. 1.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi)

I must remind the noble Baroness that, while she can speak to No. 15, she must not move it at this stage. She will have to move it when we come to it. I hope she does not mind my pointing that out to her.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

May I speak to Amendments Nos. 1 and 15? I warmly welcome the new "Before Clause 1" and the consequential amendment tabled in the names of the Minister, the noble Baroness, and myself. I should like to pay tribute to the Minister and her department for their co-operation on this complex and innovative clause. For the first time in United Kingdom legislation, a legal framework is provided for disabled people to appoint representatives if they choose to do so.

Representation, or advocacy as it is sometimes called, does not mean that disabled people will be suddenly represented by litigation-hungry lawyers. Representatives will not be paid, and in most cases they will be friends or relatives appointed by the disabled persons to assist them put their points of view to social services departments. The fact that this Bill recognises the importance of the development of representation for disabled people is a legislative landmark, and I have no doubt that it will be welcomed by disabled people, their families and friends, and professionals as well.

Like all primary legislation, especially when it is concerned with an issue as complex as this, much is to be left to regulation. While welcoming the new clause, I should like to take this opportunity of raising with the Minister one important issue. I know that behind the scenes much attention has been paid to the difficulties of representation for that small group of disabled people who arguably are most in need of a representative: those who are unable to appoint a representative for themselves.

Lord Mottistone

I cannot welcome this as much as perhaps I should because there has been so little time to consider it. It has not been possible for me to consult with the people with whom I normally consult on these matters, and I have to speak more or less straight off the cuff. I cannot be sure that I shall not have to try to put down some amendments at Report stage. However, I shall do my best, being really rather distressed that we have not had time to consider these matters. It is all very well for some people to get together with the Minister to produce what is virtually a rewriting of the Bill, but I think it would have been helpful if we could have had greater knowledge of what was happening.

As my noble friend said, she was speaking also to Amendment No. 15. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 16 and 18, both of which will not be called if Amendment No. 15 is accepted by the Committee. With regard to Amendment No. 16, I should be most grateful if my noble friend the Minister could reassure me whether the sense of what I am saying in Amendment No. 16 is covered. If it is not, I hope that if she cannot tell me now she will be able to write to me on that point so that I may put down an amendment at the next stage to have that made public.

Amendment No. 18 would naturally—if it had been possible for me to do it—come into this part of the Bill. When my noble friend was referring to the new subsection (4)(c), I think she said that this would include carers, nearest relatives and those kinds of people. I should be grateful if she would confirm for me that subsection (4)(c)(ii) covers what she has in mind as the classes and descriptions of people to be included in the regulations.

I welcome subsection (6), but it is not quite what I should have hoped to see because there is no suggestion here of consultation. It is just a bland statement that if the nearest relatives are appointed in accordance with this subsection they can then act as a person's authorised representative. But there is no suggestion that they should be brought into the discussion. It is possible that subsection (4)(c)(ii) will meet the Bill. I should be grateful for reassurance on that.

On another point altogether, the Committee may remember that at Second Reading I expressed concern that when these new regulations have been made they could put an extra burden on the existing hard-pressed local authorities. My noble friend reassured me, at col. 1250 of Hansard on 14th May, that it was not the intention to implement all these clauses immediately, but only those for which resources were known now to be available. She did not mention Clauses 1 and 2. I should be grateful for reassurance that that would cover also this new clause we are discussing and the new clause in Amendment No. 52.

I have a feeling that these new duties will add a burden on the local authorities which they may not be wholly ready for at the moment. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said "Let's get this going as quickly as possible". Of course one sees why and it would be a good thing if we did, but there is no good in getting it going if the resources are not there to implement it. We must be quite certain that that is well accepted by the Government.

I am sorry to cast a blight on what was starting to be a happy affair. I am sorry to take up the Committee's time. I am sorry that that will be necessary as we go on, but we have virtually a new Bill thrust at us and I am very sorry about that.

Baroness Trumpington

I am also very sorry that my noble friend feels the way he does. This clause was actually printed on Monday, and so I think there has been sufficient time.

Lord Mottistone

Two days.

Baroness Trumpington

Exactly. The noble Lord asked about the effect of Amendment No. 15. It is to remove from the Bill subsections 1(5) to 1(8) which have now been introduced in amended form before Clause 1 of the Bill, but it simply—

Lord Mottistone

I did not ask for Amendment No. 15 to be described. I asked for Amendments Nos. 16 and 18 to be considered.

Baroness Trumpington

I think that my noble friend did mention Amendment No. 15. He mentioned it in the context of my taking it with Amendment No. 1. I was going to get to Amendment No. 16 in due course, but before I do so I shall repeat that Amendment No. 15 is a technical amendment to remove subsections 1(5) to 1(8) from the Bill because these provisions have been included in amended form in a separate clause.

With regard to Amendment No. 16, which the noble Lord says he will not move, the provision is unnecessary because I can give him an unqualified assurance that nothing in Clause 1 or anywhere else in the Bill would diminish the effects of those sections of the Mental Health Act listed in the amendment. So when we come to Amendment No. 16 it is up to my noble friend to make up his mind what he wants to do then.

My noble friend asked whether subsection (4)(c)(ii) included consultation with carers and relatives. This will be a matter for consideration in the regulations, on which there will be full consultation. My noble friend also asked about the implementation of the clause. This again will be the subject of full consultation, and resources are something which we will certainly bear in mind. I should be grateful if my noble friend would permit this rather battered Baroness to write to him on Amendment No. 18.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I think it would be useful for the Committee if we were to stick with the groupings that we have been given, otherwise, I can see we might get into some muddles. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, whether she would agree with this since the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has not kept to the groupings.

Lord Mottistone

Perhaps I may explain. I am sure the Lord Chairman would agree with me that when he calls Amendment No. 15, which, assuming the Committee accepts this one, will go through on the nod, he will have to say that if he calls No. 15 he will not be able to call Nos. 16, 17 or 18; so therefore it could not be spoken to.

Lord Swinfen

There is one small point which I think is quite important for disabled people. Can the noble Baroness the Minister assure the Committee that disabled persons will not be forced to have a relative as the official representative when they are themselves trying to be as independent as possible? We all know how, with ordinary able-bodied young people, very many parents try to hang on to their children and will not let them get away from the nest. It is far more difficult for a physically disabled person or indeed, a mentally diasabled person, to flee the nest. Yet they have the same need. Can my noble friend on the Front Bench give us this assurance?

Baroness Trumpington

I would gladly give that assurance if I could, but I cannot as things stand. I remind my noble friend that the local authorities will be in the business of appointing representatives. If the noble Lord requires any further information, I shall have to write to him.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

When the regulations are drafted, it would be well to distinguish clearly between powers of representatives and those of someone with power of attorney.

Baroness Trumpington

I must protest about the noble Baroness who has put her name to this amendment and therefore must not ask me as the co-sponsor of the amendment for explanations. It is too much.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 1 [Authorised representatives of disabled persons]:

10 p.m.

Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 1, line 6, after ("authority") insert ("and health authority")

The noble Lord said: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to take Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 5 together. They all say the same. They all deal with the same issue concerning representation for disabled people so far as local authorities are concerned. Frankly, I do not see any logic at all in not including health authorities. I have therefore in Amendment No. 2 sought to ensure that, A local authority and a health authority shall permit the authorised representative of a disabled person". I have sought to do the same in Amendments Nos. 3 and 5.

I am especially concerned with this as it affects all people, of whatever age; and there is, as I say, simply no logic in the present situation. We are talking about young people who move back and forth. We are talking about people who may spend a hunk of their lives, if they have long lives, in a psychiatric hospital and then move into a local authority area. We are speaking of people who may be in the community for a while and are then admitted to hospital. There is a certain continuum about the way in which a local authority and a health authority treat a disabled person. It seems to me to be very strange that we have not been able to get an agreement which includes the health authority.

The second aspect I am particularly concerned about is young people. Children and young people in particular seldom have anyone to speak up on their behalf. The Mental Health Act Commission, in their recent report, said about the plight of children and young people: Such patients however have none of the protections afforded by the Mental Health Act. Particular dangers for them are that they tend to get lost in the system: having been 'volunteered' by parents or guardians for treatment at an early age, they remain as 'voluntary' patients for the rest of their lives; and in some places their care and treatment tends to receive a low priority".

The Health Advisory Service—and I am not going to quote this in full—have also expressed their concern about the absence—I do not say there is any neglect—of any advocacy for young people who are in hospital: In recent years HAS teams have repeatedly found serious shortcomings in the way services are provided to adolescents and particularly those manifesting abnormal behaviour". I could go on at considerable length, but I shall not, arguing the absolute logic of the case.

There are so many ways in which through joint planning and joint financing we try to bring together the health and social services, and this is no more so than in the field of disabled people whether they be physically disabled, mentally handicapped or have suffered a mental illness. If the noble Baroness says, "We couldn't get agreement on this because of resources", I would point out that she has already said that about local authorities. She has said that her right honourable friend the Secretary of State can bring this into operation only when resources are available. That argument was used by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, when I said, "Please let us get on with the job".

If the argument is simply one of resources, it is one which would apply to health authorities and social services. But if we are going to pass a Bill which is creating some new rights for disabled people, and we have all enormously welcomed it, we want to see that the Bill is right, even if it takes a year, two years or whatever it is for the resources to be found. We are not going to see another Bill like this for another few years: we have not had a Bill like this since the 1970 Alf Morris Bill in which as a Minister I had some involvement. This Bill will not be right until, in this respect of representation, health authorities as well as local authorities are included.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling these amendments, as it gives us a further chance to seek clarification of the Government's intention in regard to subsection (9). Several people and organisations, especially in response to the Government's consultation document on the Bill earlier this year, expressed concern that the Bill only recognises the representative in relation to social services provided by a local authority. The Bill allows for the Secretary of State to extend this recommendation to health authority services and to other local authority services after a consultation exercise has been carried out. I am sure your Lordships would agree that one of the main purposes of representation is to prevent disabled people falling through the net of services which are increasingly provided by different authorities. It makes little sense to limit the scope of a representative to social services only.

I should like to ask the Minister therefore to give, first, an undertaking that the Government will use their powers under subsection (9) to consult on extending the scope of the representative; and, secondly, to give an indication of when she hopes to initiate that consultation.

Baroness Trumpington

The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, expressed the hope in his speech on Second Reading that the Secretary of State would use his powers in the Bill to extend the provision of Clause 1 to the health service and to other local authority services and also that he would not drag his feet about this.

The noble Lord is now seeking to ensure that my right honourable friend has no choice in this matter. I accept that in the responses to the Government's consultation paper on the Bill issued in February, a lot of support emerged for extending the provisions of Clause 1 to services provided by health authorities. The Government brought forward an amendment to the Bill at the Report stage in another place to respond to that view. The reason why the amendment was framed in the particular way it was is that in the time available it was not possible to carry out detailed consultations with health authorities, professional organisations and others about the practical implications of extending the representation provisions to health services or other local authority services.

I should say that there are a number of potentially difficult areas here. Some of these were highlighted in the Government's consultation paper and both the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and I had copies before Second Reading of a letter from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, re-emphasising some of the problems. In particular, there might be difficulties in drawing distinctions in the health service context between disabled people who had the right to appoint representatives and other patients who did not. We may need to think further about the implications of the principle of representation for the clinical relationship between a doctor and his patient.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked me about this, further consultation will be undertaken on this matter if the Bill becomes law, with a view to possible activation of Clause 1(9). I do not think it would be right to extend the principle of representation to services provided by health authorities until that consultation has been carried out. Further to what I have said—I hate to tell the noble Lord, though he can imagine what I am going to say—the amendment is technically defective. For these reasons, I hope that he will agree not to press his amendment.

Lord Ennals

Almost any amendment that I draft is technically defective. It is an argument which, during long years as a Minister, I always used as a means of arguing against something that I did not like. It is always within the ability of the Government at the next stage then to bring in an amendment which is technically not defective. But the Minister did not say that she would do so.

I am not really impressed by the argument that she quoted of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, that there were some problems of definition. After all, this is a Bill which is providing services and representation for people with mental or physical handicap or mental illness. So far as concerns mental handicap and mental illness, there are a number of pieces of legislation, particularly the Mental Health Act, as amended, which have sought to draw a definition.

This is a definition which enables the Mental Health Act Commission to operate effectively, and I am not suggesting—and I am certain that the Royal College of Psychiatrists are not suggesting—that this should be a right that is offered to every patient in every hospital. This Bill is just about disabled people and I do not believe that there should be a difficulty about definition.

The noble Baroness is right. I recognise that I am seeking now to oblige the Secretary of State to do what I said I hoped he would do and what he has powers to do. I shall not press these amendments to a Division, but I wanted to air this issue because I want to urge most strongly upon the Secretary of State that he should enter into negotiations, discussions, consultations, so that we have these two things brought together. Otherwise, we shall have a Bill which is dealing with only half the problem. But with the assurance that I think the noble Baroness gave me—I do not think my hearing is as defective as that—that it was the intention of the Secretary of State to consult in order to fulfil a right that he has within the Bill, I shall not press my amendment further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

Before I call Amendment No. 4, I have to inform the Committee that in the penultimate line of this amendment the word "the" should be added at the end.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 4

Page 2, line 10, at end insert— (" (2A) In relation to a disabled person whose authorised representative has been appointed by virtue of subsection (3) of section (Appointment of authorised representatives of disabled persons), subsections (I) and (2) above shall each have effect as follows—

1. (a) if the appointment was made by virtue of subsection (3)(a) of that section, the words "the parent or guardian of shall be inserted after the words "if so requested by"; and
2. (b) if the appointment was made by virtue of subsection (3)(b) of that section, the words "if so requested by the disabled person" shall be omitted.")

The noble Baroness said: This makes a drafting change, which is somewhat ironic after the drafting change from the Chairman, consequent upon the splitting of the existing Clause 1 into two separate clauses. It also makes clear that, in the case of a disabled child under 16, the representative can only act if requested to do so by the child's parent or guardian. The Bill already provides that only the parent or guardian can appoint a representative in the case of a disabled child. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]

10.15 p.m.

Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 6

Page 2, line 19, after ("likely") insert ("on medical grounds").

The noble Lord said: Clause 1(3) permits a local authority to prevent the presence of an authorised representative at any meeting, or part of a meeting, or to decline to supply to an authorised representative any information or documents if they are satisfied that to do so would be likely to be harmful to the interests of the disabled person. This is a fairly sweeping power. I understand it is intended that it should be used in rare circumstances only. That is the intention, but will it always be the practice? The amendment is intended to restrict the use of that power to occasions when on medical grounds the local authority felt that it would not be in the disabled person's best interests. The aim is to prevent this power being used for purposes of purely administrative convenience. I am not sure that it has been made entirely clear in what circumstances it is intended that this power should be used. I beg to move.

Baroness Trumpington

I am not convinced that this amendment is necessary or desirable. I am sure there would be scope for a lot of argument as to what constituted medical grounds and there could be circumstances where it would be desirable to withhold information on purely social grounds—for example, when a wife or a husband is acting as representative of a disabled person and sexual matters are at issue. It might well be harmful to the interest of the disabled person to discuss such matters with the spouse, at any rate without first getting specific clearance from the disabled person himself or herself. But this would hardly constitute medical grounds.

The requirement that disclosure should be, harmful to the interests of the disabled person is a pretty tough one and I am not convinced that further amendment is necessary. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Banks

I take it that the sponsors of the Bill agree with the Minister as they have not spoken in a contrary sense. It seems to me that there could be as much argument about what was the interest of the disabled person as about what are medical grounds. It is left extremely vague and wide. Nevertheless, in view of what has been said, and in view of the time, I shall not pursue this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 2, line 23, at end insert ("and by his nearest relative.")

The noble Lord said: This is a small probing amendment. "Nearest relative" is a technical term and is included in my Amendment No. 101, which relates to mental patients. This part of the clause to which I have added it applies to all sorts of disabled people. But I should like reassurance from my noble friend that when the decision is taken in subsection (3) that in determining the matter the authority, shall have regard to any wishes expressed by the disabled person", in the case of mentally ill people they should also consider the wishes expressed by the nearest relative. It would seem sensible. But I appreciate that the amendment itself is probably defective. I beg to move.

Baroness Trumpington

As my noble friend Lord Mottistone said, this is the first of a series of amendments which he is proposing. My noble friend has links with and does a great deal of work for the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, and is rightly concerned to preserve the rights of relatives. I acknowledge the role of relatives in caring for disabled people, and I can understand my noble friend's concern that the representation provisions in the Bill should not undermine relatives or cause them to be bypassed.

I make the general point that there is of course nothing in the Bill to prevent a disabled person appointing a relative as his authorised representative. That is a matter for the disabled person himself where he is capable of appointing a representative. It may also in practice often be a relative who is appointed representative by the local or health authority in the case of disabled people who are not capable of appointing a representative themselves. We shall be considering and consulting on what provision should be made for consulting relatives when we come to draft regulations under this clause.

We have some difficulties with regard to this amendment. It would require the authority, in determining whether the admission of the authorised representative to a meeting or the supply of information to him would be harmful to the interests of the disabled person, to have regard to the views of the nearest relative as well as those of the disabled person in all cases, whether or not the disabled person fell within the incapable of appointing his own representative category or was currently, or had been, detained under Mental Health Act provisions. It would seem inappropriate to require the involvement of the nearest relative in the case of mentally able disabled persons. I think that I will leave it there.

Lord Mottistone

Good enough.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

This is the first amendment tabled by the noble Lord that seeks to give powers to the nearest relative as defined in the Mental Health Act. I shall reserve most of what I have to say for Amendment No. 19, but, as a disabled person myself, I find this amendment particularly objectionable, inasmuch as it would give, for instance, my noble kinsman as much say as myself in matters that may affect only me. How much worse if my nearest relative happened to be someone who I really disliked or who disliked me. It shows how very complicated the Bill is, because it stretches over so many different people who are disabled by different disabilities.

Lord Ennals

I simply echo that point, though not in relation to the noble Baroness's noble kinsman, because I do not want to touch upon the relationship between them. However, I feel that the assumption that the nearest relative is always the right person to represent the interests of the disabled person is fundamentally wrong. The choice must be that of the disabled person concerned.

There is no doubt that there are some situations—sad though they may be and understandable though they may be—where the nearest relative has played a significant part in ensuring that the disabled person was sectioned and placed in a mental hospital. Under those circumstances, it might very well be that the nearest relative would be the least suitable person to act as a representative. As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has said, whenever that argument is used I shall not necessarily get up and argue against it, but I shall in my heart be totally opposed to it.

Lord Swinfen

That which has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, adds emphasis to the point that I raised earlier. I shall be most grateful if my noble friend the Minister will give the matter her very serious consideration when preparing the letter that she said she would write to me and when the regulations are being prepared in due course. It is a very important point so far as disabled people are concerned.

Baroness Trumpington

I take note of what my noble friend has said.

Lord Mottistone

I said that this is a probing amendment, so I do not propose to argue the point with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, at this stage. I said also that I was aware that the amendment was defective and did not apply to all types of disabled people. It certainly does not apply to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, because "nearest relative" is only a technical term which, if one refers to Amendment No. 101, comes from the Mental Health Act.

The amendment has had a good airing. I shall return to the charge because, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, may consider that I go too far in one direction, I believe that he goes too far in another. I should like to debate the point but we do not want to waste too much time on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

Before I call Amendment No. 8, I must inform the Committee that the amendment is in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Trumpington and Lady Masham of Ilton, and not in that of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, as printed on the Marshalled List.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 2, line 24, at end insert— ("(aa) in hospital accommodation provided by the Secretary of State under section 3(1)(a) of the 1977 Act or, in Scotland, in hospital accommodation (other than accommodation at a State hospital) provided by the Secretary of State under section 36(1)(a) of the 1978 Act, or").

The noble Baroness said: I am sorry that I was not present when my noble friend Lord Mottistone opened the Marshalled List and saw that he was to move this amendment.

The amendment is necessary to provide a right of access for an authorised representative to a disabled person who is resident in health authority accommodation. This issue might arise particularly if the provisions of the Bill are extended to health authorities. I beg to move.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

This is a most important amendment, which will greatly assist people seeking to move from hospital into the community. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 9.

Page 2, line 43, at end insert— ("( ) in a community home as defined by section 32 of the Child Care Act 1980.")

The noble Lord said: It will be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13, which apply to the same point.

On page 2 of the Bill, in subsection (4), there is a certain listing of where disabled persons may be residing. Since we are also dealing with young disabled people, it is important—and perhaps even more important for a young disabled person—to have someone who can represent them and advise them. Therefore, in this series of five amendments I have sought to list a number of other places where a young person might be.

As at present drafted, the Bill excludes many places where children and young people are—community homes, voluntary homes, private homes, community treatment centres and schools. It appears to me that if these places are not included in the Bill it may well prove extremely difficult for a representative to gain access to the disabled person.

There is total logic in this amendment. The noble Baroness may say that there are a few others which ought to be added to the list, and if she does I will happily go along with her. However, as I have been sitting quietly here I have been trying to think of what conceivable arguments the noble Baroness could find for not being in favour of these five amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Trumpington

Extension of the representative's right of access to children in residential care would give rise to a number of problems. In cases where a parent had appointed himself as an authorised representative he would have right of access to the child if he or she was in residential care but not if the child was placed with a foster parent. We try to achieve equity between children in residential care and those in foster homes.

Secondly, such provision could conflict with a local authority's right, in the best interests of the welfare of the child, to restrict or terminate access by a parent (again, if he or she had appointed himself or herself as the child's representative) to a child in care who was a subject of a parental rights resolution or court orders. I am advised that such provision would have a "knock on" effect on other child care legislation.

Finally, we have doubts about the desirability of other representatives—albeit appointed by the parents—having access to a child without necessarily the parent being present or even aware that such contact was being made. I doubt whether in practice the problem of access to a disabled child on the part of his or her representative should be a major one, although I will study carefully what the noble Lord has said. In the light of what I have said, I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I have great sympathy for the amendments, but, having listened to what the noble Baroness said, the matter seems a bit more complicated than it at first looked. In the debate on the previous Bill she said that there was to be a major child care Bill and perhaps the provision could be incorporated in that. Will she do her best to accommodate children in that Bill?

Lord Ennals

I did not find the answer given by the noble Baroness in the least bit satisfying. I do not think that she expected that I would. I shall not press any of these amendments to a Division. The only little bit of hope that I received from her lips was the assurance that she would think about what I said. If that thought is reflected in the child care legislation that we discussed earlier, tabling the amendments will have been worth while. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 10 to 13 not moved.]

10.30 p.m.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 2, line 45, at end insert— ("(4A) In paragraph (b) of subsection (4) "voluntary organisation" in relation to England and Wales includes a housing association within the meaning of the Housing Associations Act 1985.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment is to ensure that a representative has a right of access to a disabled person resident in accommodation provided on behalf of a local authority by a housing association, as well as by any other type of voluntary organisation. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)

I have to point out that if Amendment No. 15 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 16, 17 or 18.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 15:

Page 3, leave out lines 1 to 34.

The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 not moved.]

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 19:

Page 3, line 34, at end insert— ("( ) If a nearest relative is not appointed as an authorised representative, the facilities in subsection (2) above shall be afforded to the nearest relative unless the local authority has convincing reasons for withholding them.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to extend the facilities that are given in Clause 1(2) to the nearest relative, as well as the authorised representative if the nearest relative is not performing that function. There may be many cases in which that would be a good thing. But it has the proviso that the local authority may have convincing reasons for withholding the facilities. That brings me back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was making, that there are cases in which it would be as well if the nearest relative was not involved. That is why I have put in that the local authority should have discretion, but in normal circumstances the nearest relative should have the same access to the information that is being provided to the disabled person and the authorised representative.

I hasten to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. that the nearest relative in this case is as defined in my amendment, Amendment No. 101, and so the provision would not apply to her but only to mental patients. I think that that is clear.

I should he most grateful to hear what my noble friend has to say. I beg to move.

Baroness Trumpington

I have a good deal of sympathy with the intention behind this amendment, though once again we have a few difficulties of a drafting nature. It does not seem unreasonable for the nearest relative to have access to documents and information on the same basis as the representative if, as the existing wording of this subsection already makes clear. the disabled person wishes. One difficulty is that this amendment would seem to call for consequential amendments to subsection (3) of this clause, which deals with the circumstances in which a local authority may refuse to disclose information to a representative. It would seem necessary to make further provision in the subsection to prescribe the circumstances in which disclosure should not be made to the nearest relative. That would include where disclosure would be harmful to the interests of the disabled person and perhaps also to those of the nearest relative.

There could well be circumstances in which information which would not be harmful to the disabled person or his representative would be harmful to the nearest relative—for instance, references in a document to marital infidelity by the disabled person. That is rather like the previous amendment.

Other points I should note are that we are not altogether sure that "convincing" is the right word to use because it is not clear what it means in law. We should also want to look at the effect of the close links that subsection (2) has with subsection (1). We should need to ensure that we had a definition of "nearest relative" which worked for the purpose of the provision.

In view of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw the amendment. I shall be happy to discuss this proposal with my noble friend and the Bill's sponsors to see whether we can arrive at a workable provision and one which is acceptable to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in time for a later stage of the Bill. I fear, however, that in view of the shortness of the time I cannot give a commitment on the outcome of those discussions.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and the noble Baroness said. She clearly indicated that she is sympathetic to Amendment No. 19, which would give the nearest relative the same rights as the authorised representative has under subsection (2).

I foresee difficulties, especially in circumstances where the disabled person has already appointed a representative. There may well be information which it is appropriate to disclose to a disinterested represen tative but which might cause harm to the disabled person and the relative if the relative were told. That would put a local authority in a difficult and invidious position.

I am also not certain that it is helpful or appropriate to single out the relative in a Bill which is interested more generally in disabled people and those who care for them. The nearest relative often has the most power over the disabled person, and I am not sure that that power should be increased in this way. Nevertheless, I shall listen most closely to other noble Lords on this issue. I should be happy to talk further with the noble Lord and the Baroness the Minister before Report, but without commitment, because I believe that the issue is rather more complex than it may seem at first sight.

Lord Mottistone

I am most grateful, to my noble friend the Minister for her sympathetic acceptance of the thinking behind the amendment. I note with great care what the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said. The difficulty is that there may be circumstances in which the nearest relative is causing the trouble. and the provision would not be appropriate. However, there are many cases where it would be most unfortunate if the nearest relative were pushed too far out of the picture when he or she can still help. I am not talking about physically disabled people; I am talking solely about mentally ill people, because I am only advised about them.

I am grateful to my noble friend. Whether there will be time to do all that she suggests is another matter. I shall rush to her aid if she is going to call a meeting on this subject. With the undertakings that have been given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman of Committees

I have to point out that if Amendment No. 20 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 21.

[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 21:

Page 3, line 37, after ("appropriate") insert ("and such other bodies as appear to him to be concerned")

The noble Baroness said. The amendment merely recognises that other bodies may have an interest in being consulted before the Secretary of State extends representative provisions to health authorities or other local authority services. This amendment provides for such bodies—for instance, professional bodies and voluntary organisations—to be consulted. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 22:

Page 4, line 2, at end insert— (" (9A) An order under subsection (9) may provide for any provision of regulations made under section (Appointment of authorised representatives of disabled persons) to have effect for the purposes of the order with such modifications as may be prescribed by the order, and in that event the reference in subsection (1) of that section to regulations made under that section shall be read as a reference to any such regulations as may have effect in accordance with the order.")

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos 23, 24 and 25. Amendment No. 22 is to ensure that if the Secretary of State decides to extend the Bill to health authorities or other local authority services by making an order under subsection (9), the provisions of any regulations made under the new clause relating to appointment of authorised representatives can be applied to them with the necessary changes. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 23 to 25:

Page 4, line 3, leave out ("subsection (9))—") and insert ("subsections (9) and (9A)")

Page 4, leave out line 8.

Page 4, line 9, at beginning insert ("and in subsection (9)")

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Assessment by local authorities of needs of disabled persons]:

Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 26:

Page 4, line l5, leave out ("On any occasion when") and insert ("Where—

1. (a) on any assessment carried out by them in pursuance of any provision of this Act, or
2. (b) on any other occasion,")

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 28, 30 and 34. Although the amendments to Clause 2 may look complete, I can assure the Committee that they are all most welcome and are designed to meet suggestions made by noble Lords on Second Reading. Broadly speaking, they ensure that a disabled person or his representative may receive a written statement if they request it after any assignment and may ask for review of any decision in any circumstances. The Bill, as it stands, was seen to be unnecessarily restrictive and would probably have caused more problems for local authorities if there were arguments as to whether a disabled person was entitled to a review or not.

Amendment No. 26 is purely technical and simply represents a change of mind by the draftsman on the appropriate wording. Amendment No. 27 is more important as it gives a right to a written statement even if there had been no representation by a disabled person or his representative before the assessment. Amendment No. 28 requires the statement to specify the needs of the disabled person as well as the services to be provided to meet them.

This may seem a minor clarification, but it will prove useful if there is a dispute as to how the needs are to be met: for example, the common choice between a stair lift or downstairs adaptations on which there is often disagreement between disabled people and the social services. In combination with Amendments Nos. 30 to 34 it provides the right to review on any matter included in the statement. I believe that these amendments fully cover the purpose of Amendment No. 29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 27:

Page 4, line 26, leave out from ("(1)") to ("the") in line 29 and insert (", or the period mentioned in that subsection has expired without any such representations being made, and the authority have reached a decision on the question referred to in that subsection (having taken into account any representations made as mentioned above)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Chairman of Committees

I have to point out that, if Amendment No. 28 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 29.

Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 28:

Page 4, leave out lines 32 to 34 and insert—

1. ("(a) either specifying—
   1. (i) any needs of the disabled person which in the opinion of the authority call for the provision by them of any statutory services, and
   2. (ii) in the case of each such need, the statutory services that they propose to provide to meet that need,
   or stating that, in their opinion, the disabled person has no needs calling for the provision by them of any such services; and
2. (b) giving an explanation of their decision; and
3. (c) containing particulars of the right of the disabled person or his authorised representative to make representations with respect to the statement under subsection (4).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]

Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendments Nos. 30 to 34:

Page 4, line 40, leave out from ("services") to end of line 43.

Page 5, line 2, leave out from ("matter") to ("that") in line 3 and insert ("included in the statement supplied under subsection (2)").

Page 5, line 5, leave out ("further").

Page 5, line 6, leave out ("the particular need in question") and insert ("that matter").

Page 5, leave out lines 9 to 11 and insert— ("(a) consider (or, as the case may be, reconsider) whether any, and (if so) what, statutory services should be provided by them for the disabled person to meet any need identified in the representations; and")

On Question, amendments agreed to.

10.45 p.m.

Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 35:

Page 5, line 15, after ("Where") insert ("(a)").

The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 35 to 39 clarify the right of either a disabled person or his representative to assistance if either or both have a communication handicap. I should mention that Amendment No. 75 extends this right to communication assistance to carers during a local authority assessment of the disabled person. New subsection (6A), introduced by Amendment No. 38, attempts to meet some of the concern expressed by our British Deaf Association which was raised on Second Reading by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). In determining both the need for communication assistance and the nature of that assistance the local authority must have regard to the views expressed by the disabled person or his representative who are uniquely qualified to identify this. I beg to move.

Lord Swinfen

There is one point on this amendment. It is not just the deaf who have difficulty in communication. There are a number of people with speech defects of such a nature that there are a very limited number of people who can understand them. It is absolutely essential that the local authorities, when providing the necessary services, make certain that those very few people are used for the interpretation. Sometimes the officials may not be aware of who the relevant person is to do the interpreting. Will they please make certain that they make any necessary inquiries and not just assume that a mentally capable physically disabled person is considered to be mentally disabled purely because they cannot communicate properly?

Baroness Darcy (De Knayth)

May I also welcome this group of amendments, very briefly. As my noble friend has already said, this is something that I brought up at Second Reading. Amendment No. 38 deserves particularly warm thanks in that it ensures that any views expressed by the disabled person or his representative as to the need for interpretation services, or what form those services should take, will be taken into account. Perfection would have been if people with communication difficulties were given the same degree of control as a disabled person is given when appointing his representative. But I feel that we have been given very much more than half the loaf—much more like three-quarters of the loaf. I should like to say to my noble friend that the British Deaf Association, who had been worried, welcome this amendment most warmly. The members of the BDA are likely to be the biggest single group affected by subsection (6); but, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has already pointed out, there will be many severely physically handicapped people, and those with multiple handicaps, who have communication difficulties also. I should therefore like to thank the Minister and my noble friend for making it possible for all these people to have a little more control over their lives.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment Nos. 36 to 39:

Page 5, line 17, ("writing") after insert ("(or in each of those ways)")

Page 5, line 18, after ("incapacity.") insert ("or (b) both on those persons are in that position (whether by reason of the same incapacity or not),")

Page 5, line 25, at end insert— ("(6A) In determining whether they are required to provide any services under subsection (6) to meet any need of the disabled person or his authorised representative and (if so) what those services should be, the local authority shall have regard to any views expressed by either of those persons as to the necessity for any such services or (as appropriate) to any views so expressed as to the services which should be so provided.")

Page 5, line 28, leave out from ("both") to end of line 39.

The Chairman of Committees

With the permission of the Committee, I put Amendments Nos. 36 to 39 en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 40:

After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:

("Services under s.2 of the 1970 Act: duty to consider needs of disabled person.

. When requested to do so by—

1. (a) a disabled person,
2. (b) his authorised representative, or
3. (c) any person who provides care for him in the circumstances mentioned in section 5.

a local authority shall decide whether the needs of the disabled person call for the provision by the authority of any services in accordance with section 2(1) of the 1970 Act (provision of welfare services).")

The noble Baroness said: We recognise that there may be some uncertainty about the duties placed on local authorities under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. This section of the Act places a duty on local authorities to "make arrangements" where they are satisfied that there is a need for a service or services (such as practical assistance, holidays, telephones etc); however it does not make it explicitly clear whether a local authority has a duty to determine what the needs of a disabled person are. Therefore it has been put to us that the duty to "make arrangements" could be interpreted as applying only after the local authority are satisfied that such arrangements are necessary in order to meet particular needs and that a local authority may refuse to come to a view as to what the needs are.

We are sure that local authorities are interpreting Section 2 of the CSDP Act in the spirit in which it was passed—that is to say determining what the needs of a disabled person are. However, during the Second Reading debate in this House the subject was raised by a number of noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Banks, Lord Mottistone and Lord Allen of Abbeydale—and I agreed to look into the matter and if necessary bring forward an amendment at a later stage.

We are not convinced that in practice there is a problem but we agree that the matter should be put beyond doubt. The new clause will place a clear duty on a local social services authority to decide whether the needs of a disabled person require the provision of welfare services under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. A local authority will be required to make this decision when requested to do so by a disabled person, his authorised respresentative or a carer.

I have noted that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, whom I do not see in his place, has tabled Amendment No. 76. I hope that, having listened to what I have said about the new clause, he will in due course feel able to withdraw his amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I am particularly pleased that this new clause will he part of the Bill. Although the best legal advice and, indeed, the departmental circular issued in August 1970 has always maintained that a local authority has a duty to assess the needs of a disabled person for any of the services listed in Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, it is not stated clearly in that section. As recently as February 1986 a disabled person received a letter from a chief executive's department, from which I should like to quote one or two extracts. The official wrote: I cannot agree that under Section 2 of the Act, the County Council has a duty to assess the needs of disabled people for the services mentioned in the Section … there is nothing in the language of the Act to suggest that the making of such an assessment on receipt of an application is mandatory on the council … If it were the intention of Parliament to impose upon the Council not only a duty to provide a service or services where need for the services had been determined but also a duty to determine whether such need exists, Section 2 would not have been worded in the way it is". I would say immediately to noble Lords that I believe that statement to be entirely misconceived. Nevertheless, I believe that it is in the interests of disabled people throughout the country for the matter to be put beyond doubt. With the new duties imposed by Clause 2 of this Bill, it may well be that the other rogue authorities would be moved to use the same argument to evade these duties.

The other major aspect of the new clause is the explicit mention of carers. The right of carers to ask for an assessment was one of the major issues at the Report stage in another place, and I am delighted that this is being included in the Bill.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 3 [Persons leaving special education]:

Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 41:

Page 6, line 9, after ("time") insert ("with the consent of the parent or of the disabled person if aged 16 or over").

The noble Lord said: Like the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, I am delighted by Clause 2, and I just draw the attention of the noble Baroness to Amendment No. 40, which says: When requested to do so by—

1. (a) a disabled person,
2. (b) his authorised representative",

and so on. I am therefore talking about consent. Consent is an integral part of the Bill. In particular, I feel that the identification of someone as a disabled person should be with the consent of the disabled person if that person is 16 and over, or with the consent of the parents or the guardian. There is no compulsion within the Bill to take up services, and it seems unduly restrictive not to allow consent on this point. In Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 we are dealing with Section 7 of the Education Act and a statement of a child's educational needs: the authority shall at that time require the appropriate officer to give to the authority his opinion as to whether the child is or is not a disabled person.

I simply want to ensure that he should be required to do so with the consent of the parent or the disabled person if aged 16 or over. I do not want there to be statements made on issues like this, particularly if it is a mental disability, unless it is done by consent. I hope that the noble Baroness will think that since this is my last amendment I have at last won her over.

Baroness Trumpington

I am afraid that once again I am a big disappointment to the noble Lord. The line 9 amendment would require an LEA to obtain the consent of the child, if 16 or over, or his parent prior to requiring the appropriate officer of the SSD to give his opinion as to whether the child was a disabled person. The line 11 amendment appears to require the appropriate officer similarly to obtain consent before he gives his opinion. I am sure this is not what the noble Lord intended. I assume he intended only the one consent requirement: two would clearly be a nonsense.

At present, LEAs are required, under paragraph 3 of the Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations 1983 to notify the SSD when they intend to carry out an assessment under Section 5 of the Education Act 1981. The Bill is designed in such a way that the request to provide the opinion required in Clause 3(1) can, for most children, form part of the notification when the mandatory reassessment of their needs is carried out in the 12-month period following the age of 13 years 6 months. No separate approach is necessary. To add a requirement that the LEA obtain consent before requiring the opinion will in most cases mean an additional and an unnecessary bureaucratic step.

There is no obligation on the parent (or guardian) or the young person, if appropriate, to agree to an assessment of needs under subsection (4). The Government's amendment at subsection (4B) of Clause 3 provides that a parent or young person over 16 may request that no such assessment should be carried out. This subsection has been drafted in this way to make it consistent with Clause 4(3). Drafting in this manner ensures that a child cannot be deprived of his rights under this clause simply because he, or his parent or guardian, fails to respond to an invitation to give consent. The dilemma that LEAs may experience if they fail to get any response to a request for consent is avoided. There is no intention that a family should be subjected to an assessment they feel unnecessary or do not wish for. The government amendments at subsection (4B) make this perfectly plain.

These amendments are unnecessary in so far as the point is more effectively met elsewhere in the government amendments. Further, the line 9 amendment is also inconsistent with drafting elsewhere in the Bill because it fails to include the child's guardian where this would be appropriate. And the line 11 amendment either duplicates the line 9 amendment or generates a double dose of unnecessary bureaucratic procedure. I am sorry that the Government cannot support either of these amendments, and I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw them.

Lord Ennals

I am tempted to withdraw the congratulations that I gave to officials for their excellent draftsmanship at an earlier stage of the Bill. Instead of doing that, I shall simply withdraw my two amendments.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]

11 p.m.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 43:

Page 6, line 27, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—

("(3) Where an opinion has in pursuance of subsection (1) or (2) been given in the case of a child that he is a disabled person and it subsequently appears to the responsible authority—

1. (a) that the child will cease to receive full-time education at school on a particular date and will not subsequently be receiving full-time education at a further education establishment, or
2. (b) that the child will cease to receive full-time education at such an establishment on a particular date,

and (in either case) that he will be under the age of 19 on the relevant date, the authority shall give to the appropriate officer written notification for the purposes of subsection (4) of the date referred to in paragraph (a) or (b); and any such notification shall be given not later than the relevant date and not earlier than four months before that date.

In this subsection "the relevant date" means the date falling 8 months before the date referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) above.

(3A) If at any time it appears to a local education authority—

1. (a) that a person has on a particular date ceased to receive full-time education as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (3) or will cease to do so on a particular date falling less than 8 months after that time, and
2. (b) that no notification of that date has been given to the appropriate officer under that subsection with respect to that person, but
3. (c) that, had that or any other authority (as the responsible authority for the time being) been aware of his intentions 8 months or more before that date, they would have been required to give notification of that date under that subsection with respect to him,

that authority shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, give to the appropriate officer written notification for the purposes of subsection (4) of that date.

(4) When the appropriate officer receives a notification given with respect to any person under subsection (3) or (3A), he shall (subject to subsections (4A) and (4B)) make arrangements for the local authority of which he is an officer to carry out an assessment of the needs of that person with respect to the provision by that authority of any statutory services for that person in accordance with any of the welfare enactments, and any such assessment shall be carried Out—

1. (a) in the case of a notification under subsection (3), not later than the end of the period of 5 months beginning with the date of receipt of the notification, or
2. (b) in the case of a notification under subsection (3A), before the date specified on the notification, if reasonably practicable, and in any event not later than the end of the period referred to in paragraph (a) above.

(4A) If—

1. (a) a notification has been given to the appropriate officer with respect to any person under subsection (3) or (3A), but
2. (b) it subsequently appears to a local education authority that that person will be receiving full-time education (whether at school or at a further education establishment) at a time later than the date specified in the notification,

the authority shall give written notification of the relevant facts to that officer as soon as is reasonably practicable; and on receiving any such notification that officer shall cease to be required under subsection (4) to make arrangements for the assessment of the needs of the person in question (hut without prejudice to the operation of that subsection in relation to any further notification given with respect to that person under subsection (3) or (3A)).

(4B) Nothing in subsection (4) shall require the appropriate officer to make arrangements for the assessment of the needs of a person—

1. (a) if, having attained the age of 16, he has requested that such arrangements should not be made under that subsection, or
2. (b) if, being under that age, his parent or guardian has made such a request.

(4C) Regulations under paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Education Act 1981 (assessments and statements of special educational needs) may, in relation to the transfer of statements made under section 7 of that Act, make such provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the preceding provisions of this section.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment deletes the existing subsections (3) and (4). It substitutes a requirement, in subsection (3), that LEAs shall notify the appropriate officer (in the social services department) of all children leaving full-time education, whether in school or an establishment of further education, at a date not earlier than 12 months and not later than eight months prior to the expected leaving date. The requirement to notify embraces all children who have not reached their nineteenth birthday on the date the notification is due.

Subsection (3A) provides that where a child or person decides to leave full-time education at short notice, the LEA shall notify the appropriate officer as soon as possible. It covers the case where the individual concerned moves to the area of a new LEA and ensures that authority gives the requisite notice to the new appropriate officer.

Subsection (4) places a duty on the appropriate officer, on receipt of a notification, to make arrangements to carry out an assessment of the needs of that person in accordance with the welfare enactments. The assessment is to be carried out within five months of the date of receipt of the notification, or, in cases of late notification, before the person leaves full-time education if practicable but in any event within the five-month period stipulated for other assessments.

Subsection (4A) provides that where a person changes his mind and decides not to leave full-time education as anticipated, the LEA shall notify the appropriate officer as soon as possible. The appropriate officer will then not be required to complete the arrangements for an assessment in accordance with the welfare enactments until a further notification giving a revised leaving date is received. Even in the case of individuals who move to the area of a new LEA the obligation will operate.

Subsection (4B) discharges the appropriate officer from making arrangements for an assessment in any case where a person over 16, or his parent or guardian if he is under 16, has requested that no such arrangements be made. Subsection (4C) gives the Secretary of State power to amend the Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations 1983 in respect of the transfer of statements. The provision is designed to enable the Secretary of State to amend paragraph 12 to place a duty on the LEA which made the statement on a disabled child to transfer it to a new LEA in the case of children who move areas and for whom the new LEA have not had time to make a statement or obtain the necessary opinion as to whether he is a disabled child to provide information on opinions which have been received and notices which have been sent. I beg to move.

The Chairman of Committees

I understand that there is a misprint in the last line of the new subsection (3) where it reads "8 months". It should read: 8 months before the date referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) above".

Lord Ennals

In supporting the noble Baroness, may I suggest that on future amendments—since all of us have studied the Bill with such care—she should feel the necessity to explain the amendments only if there is a question or a doubt raised by a Member of the Committee. This would save both time and her throat.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I just briefly want to say that I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the intricacies of the amendments to Clause 3 so clearly, even though her throat sounds bad. There are one or two outstanding matters which I hope will be covered in guidance. I am concerned particularly that students who are over 19 on the relevant date, the date eight months before they leave, are excluded from the Bill. I hope strongly that guidance to both LEAs and the social services departments will ask for them to be included, albeit on a non-statutory basis.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Stallard moved Amendment No. 44.

Page 6, line 40, at end insert— ( ) In making or causing an assessment to be made under the said sections, the local authority or their agents shall consider whether the disabled person may have—

1. (a) a need for information about and training in independent living skills; or
2. (b) a need for technical aids and equipment to assist independent living.")

The noble Lord said: May I say to the noble Baroness that I have limited my intervention so far to this one amendment, first of all because I think the Bill has been much improved, for the reason stated by my noble friend Lord Ennals at the beginning, by the background work done between Second Reading and this Committee stage. It is a better Bill than it was then, and I certainly have no intention to impede the Bill any more than is necessary, but I feel fairly strongly about this particular amendment. I am sure the noble Baroness will recognise that it arises from the short debate we had a few weeks ago on the question of young disabled people and their problems.

As I see it, Clause 3 is a crucial section of the Bill so far as that was concerned because it focuses attention on the needs of young people making a transition in their lives, and at the same time a transition from one network of services to another network of services. In the experience of the organisations like the Spastics Society that I mentioned in that previous debate, many disabled young adults slip through the net. This is the problem at the crucial transition from leaving school and starting to lead an independent life in the community. This clause and this amendment seek to remedy that problem.

Two key factors contained in the amendment are, in my view, the determining factors in how successful this transition will be for a disabled person. The first is the necessary information and training to be able to take up opportunities to live independently, including further training in living skills and training for employment or useful occupation. The second is information and provision of the necessary aids and equipment to help make independent living a reality. This amendment would seek to ensure that support is made available to achieve the aims of independent and integrated living by writing these two parts into the Bill.

On employment, all the evidence shows that disabled young people suffer disproportionately from unemployment as compared with their able-bodied counterparts. Changes in arrangements at Jobcentres make it very difficult to get any meaningful statistics, but let me try to provide some indication of the problem, taken from MSC statistics. In October 1982 41 per cent. of unemployed disabled people under 25 had been out of work for more than a year compared with 24 per cent. of all unemployed people under 25. In the period October 1980 to October 1982 unemployment amongst disabled people under 25 rose by 58 per cent. compared with a rise of 46 per cent. in unemployment among all people under 25. These are the statistics of the MSC.

The report by the Spastics International Medical Publications—that is the report to which I referred in that previous debate—found much evidence that unemployment and underemployment among young handicapped people had a serious damaging effect. They reported that this included a reduced chance of obtaining employment; feelings of resentment and defeat in the handicapped person; stress for the carer; and a greater dependence on state benefits. Clearly, these factors would militate against the chance of successful independent living.

Yet much could be done in the form of carers' advice, extra training and assessment to ensure that young people entering the labour market are better eqiupped to make a smooth transition from work to school. Hence the reason for the first point in my amendment.

Secondly, on aids and equipment: independent living depends upon having the appropriate environment. Although many thousands of young disabled people have been helped by assistance given both by the health and social services and by aids provided through the provisions in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, there is often more that could be done. The same report to which I have just referred found that there was increasing dissatisfaction amongst disabled people with the standard of service available. Hence the need to include this in the assessment procedure. A recent survey of young adults with cerebral palsy showed that over half were living in accommodation considered unsuitable for the severely physically handicapped; bathroom, bedroom and toilet were all inconveniently situated on the upstairs floor, yet the necessary aids including stair lifts had not been provided in many cases. Transport facilities to attend hospitals and clinics and general aids to use in the home were also found to be vital for independent living, yet often were not provided for.

In looking to the future more account should also be taken of the technical advances now being made and how these can be used by young disabled people. There are many new aids which may be of use to disabled people which are not known to them. Computers are starting to play a larger role in the lives of disabled people, and yet they need help, advice, and training to know how they can live a more independent life with the help of these new developments.

This amendment is important and is needed. The needs of these young disabled people in the two areas I have mentioned are specific and if they are neglected, as they have been in the past, they could cause a great deal of suffering. I hope that the noble Baroness will find it possible to accept this small amendment which will mean so much to youngsters trying to make this difficult transition. I beg to move.

Baroness Trumpington

Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and 'Disabled Persons Act already covers the provision of practical assistance to a disabled person in his own home and the provision of any additional facilities designed to secure his greater safety, comfort or convenience. The noble Lord's amendment would seek in effect to add to that section specific references to a need for information about and training in independent living skills and a need for technical aids and equipment to assist independent living. I applaud the intention of this amendment and accept the importance of the concept of independent living for disabled people, which is very important. But "independent living" is not a clearly defined concept and to improve the proposed statutory duty on local authorities would represent both a constraint on the manner in which they carried out their duties and, in some cases, a possible substantial additional cost. The existing provisions of Section 2 are broad enough to achieve what the noble Lord seems to be wanting and I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Stallard

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her considered remarks and her tacit support for the implications of my amendment. I am not entirely satisfied with the section of the Disabled Persons Act that she mentioned. It does not operate in the way that I would like to see it operate; hence my reasons for putting down this amendment. However, in view of what she has said—and I dare say that it will be brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 45 to 51:

Page 6, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 7 and insert— (" "the appropriate officer", in relation to the child or person referred to in the provision of this section in question, means such officer as may be appointed for the purposes of this section by the local authority for the area in which that child or person is for the time being ordinarily resident")

Page 7, line 12, leave out ("college of further education") and insert ("further education establishment")

Page 7, leave out lines 14 to 17.

Page 7, line 17, at end insert— (" "the responsible authority"—

1. (a) in relation to a child at school, means the local education authority who are responsible for the child for the purposes of the Education Act 1981:
2. (b) in relation to a child at a further education establishment, means the local education authority who were responsible for the child immediately before he ceased to receive full-time education at school;

in each case whether any such opinion as is mentioned in subsection (3) was given to that authority or not;")

Page 7, line 18, leave out ("expressions used") and insert ("other expressions used in this section and")

Page 7, line 18, after ("1944") insert ("(and not defined in this Act)")

Page 7, leave out lines 20 to 22.

The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 45 to 51 en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 52:

After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:

("Review of expected school-leaving dates of disabled children.

.—(1) A local education authority shall for the purposes of section 3 above keep under review the dates when the following children are expected to cease to receive full-time education at school or (as the case may be) at a further education establishment, namely—

1. (a) children for whom that authority are responsible for the purposes of the Education Act 1981 and in the case of each of whom an opinion has been given in pursuance of subsection (1) or (2) of section 3 above that he is a disabled person (whether it was given to that authority or not): and
2. (b) children at further education establishments for whom that authority were so responsible immediately before they ceased to receive full-time education at school and in the case of each of whom any such opinion has been given as mentioned in paragraph (a).

(2) Subsection (5) of section 3 shall have effect for the purposes of this section as it has effect for the purposes of that section.").

The noble Baroness said: The aim of this clause is to require LEAs to establish a procedure which keeps track of disabled children and thus permits them to have available the necessary information to enable them to comply with the notification requirements in Clause 3. The safeguard is a sensible one and I hope the Committee will welcome it. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 4 [Persons discharged from hospital]:

[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]

11.15 p.m.

Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 54:

Page 7, line 25, leave out ("a").

The noble Baroness said: With Amendment No. 54, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 55, 58, 60 and 62 to 65. The amendments to Clause 4 standing jointly in the names of the Minister and myself are all most welcome additions to the Bill. They clarify and confirm the procedures for ensuring that people who have been in mental handicap or psychiatric hospitals for more than six months have an assessment of their needs before they are discharged. I am sure all noble Lords and noble Baronesses will agree that in these days an in-patient stay of six months' treatment is a very long one. Most if not all such patients will encounter considerable difficulties in re-establishing themselves within their families and communities.

Together, the amendments more than meet the original aspirations of the sponsors. They give body to the spirit of the agreement reached in another place. I am happy to report that they have the agreement of the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the National Association of Health Authorities. These of course are the main bodies representing the authorities who will put this clause into practice.

Amendments Nos. 54, 55, 58 and 60 require the hospital managers to send written notification of the date of discharge to the local authority of the area in which the patient is to live and also to the district health authority and the local education authority if the patient is under 19. I should say in explanation that in most cases the hospital managers will be a district health authority, and there are exclusions throughout the clause to prevent them informing themselves or consulting themselves if the same district health authority will continue to be responsible for the patient.

Following notification, Amendment No. 64 ensures that each authority will be required to take action as follows. Under subsection (2)(a), the district health authority must assess the patient's need for services under the National Health Service Act 1977, in consultation with the hospital managers. Under subsection (2)(b) the social services department must assess the need for services under the welfare enactment, and of course in this case Clause 2 of the Bill will also apply. Subsection (2)(c) also places the additional duty on each of these authorities to cooperate with each other in making the arrangements for assessments.

In many cases, authorities may wish to undertake joint assessments, but we do not feel it is right to tie their hands in primary legislation and to tie their practical arrangements to a precise formula which may not be appropriate in all circumstances. Subsection (2)(d) requires both assessments to be undertaken before the discharge or as soon as possible after discharge, following the order of a mental health review tribunal or, in Scotland, the Mental Welfare Commission or the sheriff. Where a discharge is properly planned there should be no fear of its being held up by this clause. As the Mental Health Act Commission asserted in its first biannual report in 1985, discharge should be a process, not an event. Where the temptation might be to make an overnight decision to discharge someone, the clause will ensure that adequate planning for that person takes place. In any event, subsection (3) in Amendment No. 65 allows a patient to waive his right to an assessment.

The duty on the local education authority is not so clear. I understand that if the patient is under 16 the procedures under the Education Act 1981 will apply. The local education authority will either initiate an assessment of the child's special education needs or amend an existing statement. What will happen if the patient is over 16 but under 19 is less clear, but perhaps the noble Baroness can clarify this point.

Subsection (3A) in Amendment No. 65 is a technical amendment to stop assessments being triggered by transfers between hospitals, and also to confirm that time spent in different hospitals will be added together for the purpose of the six months mentioned in subsection (1). I apologise for the length of my speech, but these amendments are complex and most important. I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.

Lord Mottistone

If I may have the advice of the Chairman of Committees, the noble Baroness said that she was speaking, among other things, to Amendment No. 65. I think I am right in saying that, if the Lord Chairman were to call Amendment No. 65, he would warn us that he then could not call Amendment No. 66. Would it be appropriate—

The Chairman of Committees

I would not. No, you can have No. 66.

Lord Mottistone

Amendment No. 66 refers to a subsection (3) which is being left out.

The Chairman of Committees

My advice is that I can call No. 66.

Lord Mottistone

Good. We will wait for it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 55:

Page 7, line 27, leave out from ("discharged") to end of line 35 and insert ("the managers of the hospital shall give written notification of that date—

1. (a) to the health authority in whose district or area it appears to the managers that that person is likely to reside after his discharge (unless the managers are that authority),
2. (aa) to the local authority in whose area it appears to them that that person is likely then to reside, and")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 56:

Page 7, line 35, leave out ("and")

The noble Lord said: If I may, I will speak to Amendment No 59, also for which Amendment No. 56 is a paving amendment. The argument I advance is that it should be the case that the manager of a hospital should consult not only with the local authority and the appropriate authority, in relation to people under the age of 19, but with the nearest relative. That is very much the case here, because we are talking about mental patients anyhow. In this instance, it can be most difficult and alarming if somebody is discharged into the community without the nearest relative knowing that the person is coming. It seems to me that this is a case where the nearest relative needs to be bracketed with the other authorities mentioned in Clause 4(1). I hope that my noble friend the Minister can give me a helpful comment upon that. I beg to move.

Lord Swinfen

May I add a quick word on that? I think this is quite an appropriate amendment, because in a number of instances the young person under the age of 19, because of the good feeding we have had in the last few years, is considerably larger than the mother and, often, the father, and if there is any disagreement as a result of the mental disorder, serious damage could occur to the parents.

Baroness Trumpington

We acknowledge that there is a clear case for relatives, particularly those who will be directly caring for the patient after discharge, to be involved in the assessment process and decisions emerging from it. But, while we are sympathetic to the intention behind this amendment, I think we can best deal with the issues raised in guidance to authorities at such time as this clause is implemented.

Lord Mottistone

That is not subject to a later order. It is going to be the law. It is on the face of the Bill. Am I to understand that we are to rely upon guidance from the department to hospitals to make the point? Is that good enough? Perhaps my noble friend will comment.

Baroness Trumpington

I was trying to deal with this in shorthand in view of the lateness of the hour, but the noble Lord has challenged me and so I must detain the Committee a moment longer. This amendment presents difficulties. On the one hand it seems to put relatives on the same footing as the authorities who are required by subsection (1) to make the assessments, which they are clearly not.

More seriously the amendment opens up a whole series of questions about the involvement of relatives in the process of making decisions about the care of mentally disordered people after discharge, and such questions apply equally to carers who are not relatives. It is difficult to see how we could fully examine these questions without further consultation with representatives of the statutory authorities, professional organisations and interested voluntary organisations. On that basis I hope my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Mottistone

That is very much more acceptable. I thank my noble friend and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 57:

Page 7, line 36, leave out ("the age of 19") and insert ("the relevant age").

The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 67, 68, 69 and 73. All of these five amendments are technical and are needed to reconcile this Bill with existing legislation. On behalf of my noble friend Lord Davidson—and perhaps I should say here that I am acting in loco parentis—I beg to move.

On Question amendment agreed to.

Baroness Trumpington: moved Amendment No. 58:

Page 7, line 37, after ("date,") insert ("to")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 60:

Page 7, line 37, at end insert— ("as soon as is reasonably practicable after that date is known to the managers.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 61:

Page 7, line 42, at end insert ("the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland or by")

The noble Lord said: I am doing it again for somebody else, it appears. This amendment corrects an omission from the Bill as drafted in its application to Scotland. Clause 4 (2) (a) properly recognises that the provisions of Clause 4(1) concerning the assessment of patients' needs prior to discharge from hospital after a continuous period of not less than six months treatment for mental disorder cannot apply where discharge of such a patient is ordered with immediate effect. In Scotland this is most commonly on the order of the sheriff where a patient makes a formal appeal to him under provisions in the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 against detention and that appeal is upheld.

It is nevertheless also possible for discharge to be ordered with immediate effect by the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland. This commission is an independent body set up under Section 2 of the 1984 Act which has a duty to exercise protective functions in respect of persons who may by reason of mental disorder be incapable of protecting themselves or their interests. While its powers of immediate discharge are infrequently used, it would be inappropriate for the Bill not to recognise this eventuality. This is thus a potentially important amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Trumpington: moved Amendments Nos. 62 to 65:

Page 8, line 2, leave out ("in a hospital")

Page 8, line 5, leave out from beginning to ("subsection") in line 7 and insert ("the managers of the hospital shall give written notification of that person's discharge in accordance with paragraphs (a), (aa) and (b) of")

Page 8, line 8, at end insert—

("(2A) Where—

1. (a) a health authority receive a notification given with respect to a person under subsectiion (1) or (2), or
2. (b) the managers of a hospital from which a person is to be, or is, discharged as mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) are the health authority referred to in subsection (1) (a),

that authority shall (subject to subsection (3)) make arrangements for an assessment of the needs of that person with respect to the provision of any services under the 1977 Act or 1978 Act which the Secretary of State is under a duty to provide; and in making any such arrangements a health authority falling within paragraph (a) above shall consult the managers of the hospital in question.

(2B) Where a local authority receive a notification given with respect to a person under subsection (1) or (2), the authority shall (subject to subsection (3)) make arrangements for an assessment of the needs of that person with respect to the provision of any services under any of the welfare enactments.

(2C) A health authority and a local authority who are by virtue of subsections (2A) and (2B) each required to make arrangements for an assessment of the needs of a particular person shall co-operate with each other in the making of those arrangements.

(2D) Any assessment for which arrangements are required to be made by virtue of subsection (2A) or (2B) shall be carried out—

1. (a) where the notification in question was given under subsection (1), not later than the date mentioned in that subsection, or
2. (b) where the notification in question was given under subsection (2), as soon as is reasonably practicable after receipt of the notification.")

Page 8, line 9, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

(" (3) A health authority or a local authority shall not be required to make arrangements for an assessment of the needs of a person by virtue of subsection (2A) or (2B) if that person has requested them not to make any such arrangements.

(3A) Nothing in this section shall apply in relation to a person who is being discharged from a hospital for the purpose of being transferred to another hospital in which he will be an in-patient (whether or not he will be receiving medical treatment for mental disorder) but any reference in subsection (1) or (2) to a person's having received medical treatment for mental disorder as an in-patient for the period mentioned in that subsection is a reference to his having received such treatment for that period as an in-patient in one or more hospitals (any interruption of that period attributable to his being transferred between hospitals being disregarded).")

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move.

The Lord Chairman of Committees

I think the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was quite correct in saying that Amendment No. 65 pre-empts Amendment No. 66. Perhaps we can discuss Amendment No. 66 now if the noble Lord so wishes.

Lord Mottistone

I thank the noble Lord the Lord Chairman. Perhaps we can look at Amendment No. 66 in relation to the new subsection (3) in Amendment No. 65. There may be circumstances in which the person may request that the arrangements referred to should not be made, but they might be subject to an assessment under Section 117 of the 1983 Act which relates to aftercare in relation to people who are detained under Section 3 and certain persons who are criminals. I would have thought that it was sensible to include such a provision in the Bill in its new place, at the end of subsection (3).

11.30 p.m.

The Chairman of Committees

The Committee is discussing this amendment with the others, so the noble Baroness may speak to it.

Baroness Trumpington

This amendment is not as shipshape as I would have expected from my noble friend. While there is a duty under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 for health and social services to provide aftercare for detained patients, there is no corresponding duty laid upon ex-detained patients to accept such aftercare services—nor should there be, except in the case of restricted patients; for example, those who have been conditionally discharged, for whom provision already exists.

It follows that people who are about to be discharged should not be required to co-operate in the preceding stage of assessment if they do not wish to do so. If a patient refuses to co-operate, that could have a bearing on the decision whether or not he is discharged from detention. Removing a patient's freedom in that respect could remove a valuable indicator of the patient's likely reaction to much greater freedoms once discharged. In view of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I have listened to the noble Lord's argument but I am not convinced that it is right to exclude the small number of detained patients from the right to refuse an assessment. I am not convinced that they should be treated any differently.

Lord Mottistone

It depends on the circumstances. I accept the statements of my noble friend the Minister but I am not quite so happy about the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. However, it is late and I shall not pursue the point. We might return to it on Report.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Chairman of Committees

If the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will allow me to say so, I cannot now call Amendment No. 66.

[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 67 to 69:

Page 8, line 16, after ("authority") insert ("or, in Scotland, an education authority").

Page 8, line 18, after ("authority") insert ("or (as the case may be) education authority").

Page 8, line 20, after ("where") insert (", in England and Wales,").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 57. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendments Nos. 70 to 72:

Page 8, line 22, at end insert— (" "health authority"—

1. (a) in relation to England and Wales, means a District Health Authority, and
2. (b) in relation to Scotland, means a Health Board;").

Page 8, leave out lines 23 to 33.

Page 9, line 3, leave out ("within the meaning of the 1978 Act").

The noble Baroness said: These are technical amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 73:

Page 9, line 19, at end insert—("and the relevant age"—

1. (a) in relation to England and Wales, means the age of 19; and
2. (b) in relation to Scotland, means the age of 18").

The noble Lord said: This amendment also goes with Amendment No. 57. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 74:

Page 9, leave out lines 20 to 23.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 [Duty of local authority to take into account abilities of carer]:

The Chairman of Committees

Amendment No. 76 should precede Amendment No. 75, but I believe that it will not be moved.

[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 75:

Page 9, line 36, at end insert—

("(2) Where that other person is unable to communicate, or (as the case may be) be communicated with, orally or in writing (or in each of those ways) by reason of any mental or physical incapacity, the local authority shall provide such services as, in their opinion, are necessary to ensure that any such incapacity does not prevent the authority from being properly informed as to the ability of that person to continue to provide care as mentioned in subsection (1).

(3) Section 2(6A) shall apply for the purposes of subsection (2) above as it applies for the purposes of section 2(6), but as if any reference to the disabled person or his authorised representative were a reference to the person mentioned in subsection (2).").

The noble Baroness said: I am happy to move this amendment as it meets a commitment made by the Government at the Report stage of the Bill in another place. The purpose of the amendment has already been explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 [Information]:

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 77:

Page 9, line 39, leave out ("Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970") and insert ("1970 Act").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 78 to 80:

Page 10, line 1, after ("for") insert ("the words").

Page 10, line 2, after ("substituted") insert ("the words").

Page 10, line 4, after ("inserted") insert ("the words").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 [Reports to Parliament]:

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 81:

Page 10, line 28, after ("stay;") insert— ("( ) separate analyses of the needs of persons assessed in sections 2 and 4 of this Act, showing the numbers of persons in each category of needs and the trends of such numbers;").

The noble Lord said: It has been represented to me that the statistics relating to persons assessed under Clauses 2 and 4 of the Bill could be much improved and could aid my noble friend the Minister greatly in her planning. It is a technical point and I informed my noble friend the Minister by letter some time ago. I shall be grateful if she will comment on it. I beg to move.

Baroness Trumpington

I have the briefest of comments. This amendment would require the collection of data on each and every assessment carried out under Clauses 2 and 4. It would be a considerable task and have substantial resource implications. I am sorry, but I must resist the amendment.

Lord Mottistone

Would it be possible for my noble friend's statisticians to be put in touch with the people who know about statistics and who might be able to help them?

Baroness Trumpington

On behalf of my department, I resent those remarks.

Lord Mottistone

That is not a very happy reply. However, I shall write to my noble friend on the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 82 to 84:

Page 10, line 35, leave out ("within the meaning of that Act").

Page 10, line 39, leave out ("within the meaning of the 1984 Act").

Page 10, leave out line 40.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 [Amendment of section 29(2) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970]:

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 85:

Page 11, line 3, leave out ("Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970") and insert ("1970 Act").

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 86:

Page 11, line 10, after ("persons") insert (", or").

The noble Lord said: This clause introduced by my right honourable friend in another place puts beyond doubt the position of persons suffering from mental disorder under the chronically sick and disabled persons legislation in Scotland. This provision, I am happy to say, was warmly welcomed by local authority interests in Scotland, the sponsors and by honourable and right honourable Members in another place. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 87:

Page 11, line 12, leave out ("under section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968") and insert ("to whom section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 applies").

The noble Lord said: The same applies to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 88:

Page 11, line 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

("(2) In section 2 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (social work committees and functions referred to them) in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) after the word "Act" there shall be inserted the words "as read with sections 1 and 2(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986".

(3) The foregoing provisions of this section extend to Scotland only.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment repairs a technical omission to the list of provisions containing functions which stand referred to the social work committee of regional authorities in Scotland under section 2(2) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and also adds a reference to the present Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 89:

After Clause 9 insert the following new clause—

Persons leaving special education: Scotland.

("9A.—(1) Before an education authority make a report under section 65B(1) of the 1980 Act on a child they shall require the appropriate authority to give an opinion as to whether or not the child is a disabled person.

(2) Where the appropriate authority have given an opinion that the child is a disabled person, the education authority shall make a note of this opinion in the Record kept under section 60(2) of the 1980 Act and in the report made under section 65B(1) of that Act.

(3) Where an education authority—

1. (a) intend to record a child or young person under section 60(2) of the 1980 Act (recording of children with special educational needs) after the period mentioned in section 65B(2) of that Act; or
2. (b) after making a report under the said section 65B(1) on a child or young person who was not at the time of the report a disabled person, become aware of a significant change in the mental or physical condition of the child or young person giving them reason to believe that he may now be a disabled person

they shall before opening the Record, or, as the case may be, on becoming aware of the change, require the appropriate authority to give an opinion as to whether or not the child or young person is a disabled person and if the appropriate authority give an opinion that he is, this opinion shall be recorded in the Record and (where applicable) the report.

(4) Where the appropriate authority have given an opinion that a child or young person is a disabled person it shall be the duty of that authority to make an assessment of the needs of that child or young person with respect to the provision by the authority of any statutory services for that person in accordance with the welfare enactments, and for that assessment to be carried out—

1. (a) in the case of a child in relation to whom a report is made under section 65B(1) of the 1980 Act, within the period mentioned in section 65B(2) of that Act; and
2. (b) in the case of a child or young person who is considered to be disabled under subsection (3) above, as soon as is reasonably practicable (but, in any event, not later than 6 months from the time the appropriate authority was asked for an opinion as to whether or not the child or young person was a disabled person)

and to make a report thereon.

(5) Where the appropriate authority have given an opinion that a child is a disabled person and it subsequently appears to the education authority—

1. (a) that the child will cease to receive full-time education at school at a particular date and will not subsequently be receiving full-time education at an establishment of further education; or
2. (b) that the child will cease to receive full-time education at such an establishment on a particular date

the education authority shall, not later than 6 months before that date, record the date in the report or (if no report has been made) give written notification of the date to the appropriate authority.

(6) If at any time it appears to the education authority—

1. (a) that a child or young person who has been recorded as being disabled has ceased to receive full-time education; and
2. (b) the authority did not at the appropriate time—
1. (i) record that date in the report made under section 65B of the 1980 Act; or (as the case may be)
2. (ii) give notification to the appropriate authority; and
3. (c) a copy of the report has not been sent to the bodies mentioned in section 65B(6) of the said Act

they shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, record the date in the report and send a copy of the report to the appropriate authority or (if no report has been made) give written notification of the date to the appropriate authority.

(7) The education authority and the appropriate authority shall keep under consideration the cases of all children and young persons on whom a report has been made under section 65B of the 1980 Act or, as the case may be, under subsection (4) and shall at such times as they consider appropriate review the information contained in the report.

(8) Nothing in subsection (4) shall require the appropriate authority to make an assessment of the needs of a child or young person—

1. (a) if having obtained the age of 16, he has requested that such an assessment should not be made under that subsection; or
2. (b) if, being under that age or unable to make such a request by reason of any mental or physical incapacity, his parent has made such a request.

(9) In this section— appropriate authority" means the local authority for the purposes of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 failing to perform functions in relation to the child or young person; and expressions used in the 1980 Act have the same meaning in this section as in that Act.

(10) The foregoing provisions of this section extend to Scotland only.").

The noble Lord said: When this Bill was in another place my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave an assurance that he would make arrangements to bring forward for Scotland provisions relating to persons leaving special education which were similar, in effect, to Clause 3. The new clause now before us does just that.

In considering this clause we had to have regard to the very different statutory provisions covering children and young persons with special educational needs in Scotland. For example, we have had to have regard to the fact that in Scotland arrangements already exist for these children to have their future needs assessed. This assessment, made under Section 65B of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, takes place during the period when a child is aged between 14 years and 15 years 3 months. In bringing forward this new clause we have taken care to ensure not only that there should be no duplication of effort, which could easily occur if the two assessments needed are not carefully co-ordinated, but also that we build upon existing arrangements in a way which both improves them and makes the extension of assessment more effective. I am confident that those objectives have been achieved in this clause and that no disabled recorded child will leave special education without the benefit of an up-to-date assessment by both education authority and social work departments of his future needs and welfare requirements.

I can tell the Committee that the Association of Directors of Education and Social Work, as well as CoSLA, have been consulted and have agreed these new arrangements in principle. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 10 [Assessment and recording of children and young persons]:

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 90:

Page 11, line 15, leave out ("Education (Scotland) Act 1980") and insert ("1980 Act").

The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 91 to 94 inclusive.

When Clause 10 was introduced in another place my honourable friend the Under-Secretary explained how subsection (5) corrected an anomaly. Section 63(1) of the Act gave rights to parents to appeal against the decision to record their child and for certain other matters but did not give a right of appeal against an authority's decision not to record a child.

Another place agreed that amendment, which applied to children, but I have to tell the Committee that a similar anomaly exists in respect of young persons. As the law stands at present those persons have no right of appeal against a decision of the education authority not to record their special education needs, which effectively may deny them the considerable benefit which might follow recording. The Government believe that that should be corrected, and the tabled amendment to Section 63(2) of the Act is necessary so to do.

The amendment substituting the words "1980 Act" for "Education (Scotland) Act 1980" is consequential and technical and related to the amendments that have been tabled to Clause 12. The other amendments are also technical and relate to cementing in the new provision on appeals. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 91 to 94:

Page 12, line 26, after ("persons") insert ("—(a)").—.

Page 12, line 30, at end insert— ("(b) in subsection (2) before paragraph (a) there shall be inserted— (aa) a decision of an education authority not to record the young person or, following a review under section 65A of this Act, not to continue to record him;" ").

Page 12, line 32, after ("paragraph (a)" insert ("—(a)").

Page 12, line 33, at end insert— ("(b) for the words ("(2)(a)") substitute ("(2)(aa) or (a)").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 91 to 94 en bloc. I spoke to them with Amendment No. 90.

The Chairman of Committees

I have to point out that in Amendment No. 91 there is a misprint. It should read: Page 12, line 26, after ("persons") insert ("—(a)").—.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

11.45 p.m.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 95:

After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:

("Advancement of health of people of Scotland.

.—After section 13 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 there shall be added the following section.

"13A.—(1) For the purposes of section 13 above, and the duty under section 15 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 of health boards and local authorities concerned with provision of services for the disabled to co-operate with one another the following provisions shall apply.

(2) There shall be established for the area of each Health Board a joint planning committee.

(3) Every joint planning committee shall consist of representatives of the Health Board, of local authorities in the area of the Health Board, of housing associations, development corporations, voluntary organisations and of representatives of relevant consumers of health services in that area hereafter referred to as the committee's 'constituent Health Board, authorities and organisations') appointed in such numbers and on such terms as shall be prescribed in a scheme to be contained in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(4) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult with such associations of local authorities and with such other organisations and individuals as appear to him to be appropriate.

(5) The general function of a joint planning committee shall be to improve through liaison, co-ordination and planning the effectiveness and efficiency of the services of common concern to its constituent Health Board, authorities and organisations.

(6) A joint planning committee shall:

1. (a) monitor the planning and development of services of common concern;
2. (b) establish procedures conducive to the implementation of those services;
3. (c) advise upon the making of payments towards expenditure on community services under section 16A of this Act.

(7) Every joint planning committee shall prepare and adopt every three years a plan (hereafter referred to as a 'joint plan') for the guidance of the committee's constituent Health Board, authorities and organisations in the performance of services of common concern.

(8) A joint plan shall contain:

1. (a) a comprehensive review of the provision and operation of services of common concern to the committee's constituent Health Board, authorities and organisations including those services in relation to disabled persons;
2. (b) the committee's proposals for the future provision of the said services.

(9) The Secretary of State shall make regulations governing the preparation and adoption of joint plans including provision for consultation with the public.

(10) The Secretary of State shall issue guidance in a code of practice to joint planning committees concerning the form and content of joint plans.".")

The noble Lord said: I am sorry to interrupt the rapid progress of the Bill in the past hour but the matter to which I shall speak is of great concern, particularly in Scotland. I am sorry that a Scottish Minister is not on the Front Bench, as he would understand the full implications of what I have to say.

From these Benches we have not so far spoken on the amendments and on the Bill. We have no intention of impeding the progress of the Bill and we add our congratulations to the officials and all concerned with the improvements to the Bill that have been effected at this stage. I might even add my congratulations to the individual who initiated the Bill in another place. I see him in the Gallery and he has been following the proceedings throughout. He is to be congratulated on drawing the first place in the ballot for Private Bills and also on guiding the Bill through another place and initiating the measure in that way.

The amendment draws attention to certain weaknesses in the consultation procedures. It was drafted by a group called the Care in the Community Working Party. It is a fairly representative group. It is comprised of Age Concern, Community Service Volunteers, the Society for the Mentally Handicapped and the Association for Mental Health. The fact that those bodies have combined to draft the amendment indicates the depth of their concern about this weakness.

In Scotland, the development of care in the community for disabled people, in particular, lags far behind that in England and Wales. There continues to be a much greater emphasis than south of the Border on long-stay institutional care, primarily in large, inadequate and often inaccessible and inappropriate hospitals. Anyone who has been reading the Scottish press in the past month and the revelations of the appalling conditions at Lennox Castle mental hospital will understand how serious is this matter.

The trouble is that there is an absence of concerted action at the local level across Scotland based upon joint planning and active collaboration among the local authorities, the health boards, the voluntary organisations, the housing associations and all who are concerned in these matters. The lack of substantial ministerial initiatives in Scotland to parallel the significant progress that has been made in England is disturbing. England and Wales are much ahead of Scotland in dealing with this matter of local collaboration by interested parties.

The problem is that instead of legislation in Scotland, successive Secretaries of State have had to rely upon mild exhortations in Scottish Office circulars, whereas in England the circulars governing this matter which are issued by the DHSS have some statutory backing and carry more authority.

The bodies which have asked me to raise the matter in this Committee feel deeply about it and feel that this is the opportunity for a draft clause to be inserted to correct the deficiencies of joint liaison and joint planning committees in Scotland which are being merged due to the absence of any statutory framework for co-operation. It is with that in mind that I commend the amendment to the Government.

The preparation of effective and agreed joint plans is a fundamental prerequisite if joint planning committees are ultimately to be of any real value to the people who need the services of the authorities concerned. It is because I wish to see this proposal implemented and to see the Scottish situation brought more into line with what has been achieved in England and Wales that I beg to move.

Lord Skelmersdale

While I understand the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I should remind him that the Government speak with one voice and on this matter at this time I am it.

On behalf of the Government I regret that I cannot accept the amendment, though I understand the genuine concern which underlines it. The clause is, I understand, identical to one introduced by the Bill's sponsors in Commmittee in another place. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary rejected the very detailed and prescriptive elements which it contained and the clause was removed on Report with the agreement of the sponsors, following my honourable friend's clear undertaking to introduce into the Bill when it was being considered in this Committee reserve powers in relation to the establishment of these committees and relevant aspects of their activities.

Now, as the noble Lord has told us, we have it back. With the Committee's permission I shall rehearse very briefly the outline of my honourable friend's case against the clause. While he wished to give the necessary encouragement for co-operation between health and social work authorities as in the present Clause 11 he could not at that stage accept the need for a statutory requirement to form joint planning committees as in subsection (2) of the new clause.

The membership requirements in subsection (3) were felt to be very unwieldy and having to seek the breadth of opinions required in that provision would undoubtedly delay the preparation of joint plans to a very considerable degree. Moreover the requirement to consult before making regulations as required in subsection (4) was seen as an unnecessary extra hurdle in discussions and debate which will be necessary anyway. The remaining provisions were, likewise, felt to be unduly bureaucratic and quite inappropriate for dealing with the variety of local circumstances likely to be encountered. In short, the clause was seen as cutting across the approach the Government were seeking to apply to joint planning and which, I understand, is beginning to produce encouraging results.

The arrangements preferred by the Government are now being implemented by health boards and local authorities, with the appropriate involvement of voluntary agencies. In urging the rejection of the same clause in another place, my honourable friend stressed that it would be senseless to make new requirements now and so lose what has already been achieved, thus branding the arrangements a failure without giving them reasonable time to produce results of the kind we expect.

On further consideration between Committee and Report stages in another place, he did however recognise that the present Bill provides an opportunity to secure a reserve power providing for the statutory regulation of joint planning in Scotland should the present administrative arrangements after all fail to show themselves properly effective following a proper period of trial. An undertaking was therefore given in the debate on Report to bring forward an amendment to Clause 11 as it now stands which would have provided a power to proceed in this way.

There was a difficulty, however, which was recognised in the other place and which I may say would equally affect the noble Lord's own clause. Any power taken in the present Bill can only be drafted in terms which apply to the classes of persons to whom the Bill in general relates. It could not, as matters stand, cover any range of priority groups for joint planning, still less joint planning as a whole.

As the sponsors of the Bill already know, attempts to secure an extension of the Long Title of the Bill for this specific purpose have not proved acceptable to the appropriate authorities. The Government have explored how this difficulty might be overcome, and I am advised that an effective solution has now emerged. An amendment on the lines previously envisaged containing the power relating to joint planning committees referred to above but covering all the priority groups and encompassing the provisions of the present Clause 11 will be introduced in the National Health Service (Amendment) Bill, which completed its passage in another place very recently and is now due to come before this House shortly.

I am sure that the Committee will accept that this change in arrangements is required on grounds which could not have been anticipated with any certainty two months or so ago, particularly given the speed with which last minute discussions had to be carried out.

I ask the Committee to accept that the proposal now before the Committee will provide a final outcome in no way different from that envisaged by my honourable friend in his statement at Report stage in another place. It is not proposed to move any amendment to Clause 11 at this time but, so that the House can consider this matter fully, we will instead include a repeal provision in the National Health Service (Amendment) Bill to take Clause 11 out of the present Bill, and cover this point in the latter Bill by an amended Clause 11 to this Bill.

This may seem a strange way of going about things hut, on reconsideration, we decided that this procedure was fairest to all sides. To avoid the Government being accused of asking the promoters of the Bill and indeed your Lordships to buy a pig in a poke, I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and the Committee will agree with this procedure.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe

I am sure that the Minister appreciates that I shall require time to study his comprehensive reply. I was rather disappointed at the reaction of the Minister. I thought that he was unduly complacent and unduly defensive about the present situation. That situation is intolerable in Scotland. I shall, however, study the new provisions included in the National Health Service (Amendment) Bill that the noble Lord has suggested might cover the points of concern not only to myself but also to the large number of organisations involved which have invited me to state their case tonight. I shall study them. If it is necessary, I shall return to this matter at Report stage. But if the situation which I have described is about to be covered in the new National Health Service (Amendment) Bill which is about to come to us then it is very acceptable.

I do not propose to take this to a Division tonight, but I must say this to the Minister. If he looks at the condition of the treatment of people who are mentally ill and mentally handicapped in Scottish institutions, it is a national disgrace and something will require to be done to ensure that there is appropriate joint planning so that local communities can express themselves and become involved in the changes which are necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 [Interpretation]:

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 96:

Page 13, line 18, at end insert— (" "the 1980 Act" means the Education (Scotland) Act 1980;").

The noble Lord said: This is a purely technical amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 97 and 98:

Page 13, line 23, leave out ("1(5)") and insert ("(Appointment of authorised representatives of disabled persons) (1)")

Page 13, line 32, at end insert— ("guardian" except in section (Appointment of authorised representatives of disabled persons (6)) means a person appointed by deed or will or by order of a court of competent jurisdiction to be the guardian of a child; Health Board" means a Health Board within the meaning of the 1978 Act; hospital"—

1. (a) in relation to England and Wales, means—
1. (i) a health service hospital within the meaning of the 1977 Act, or
2. (ii) any accommodation provided by any person pursuant to arrangements made under section 23(1) of that Act (voluntary organisations and other bodies) and used as a hospital; and
2. (b) in relation to Scotland, means a health service hospital within the meaning of the 1978 Act;")

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 97 and 98, and speak to Amendments Nos. 100 and 102. These are consequential and drafting amendments. I beg to move.

The Chairman of Committees

With the permission of the Committee I put Amendments Nos. 97 and 98 en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 99:

Page 13, line 41, leave out ("sections 1 and 2") and insert ("section 1, as read with section 2,").

The noble Lord said: This is a purely technical amendment correcting an error in Clause 12. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 100:

Page 14, line 2, at end insert— (" "modifications" includes additions, omissions and amendments; parents", in relation to England and Wales, means, in the case of a child who is illegitimate, his mother, to the exclusion of his father:")

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 102:

Page 14, line 3, at end insert— (" "special hospital" means a special hospital within the meaning of the 1977 Act; State hospital" means a State hospital within the meaning of the 1984 Act; statutory services"—

1. (a) in relation to England and Wales, means services under any arrangements which a local authority are required to make by virtue of any of the welfare enactments, and
2. (b) in relation to Scotland, means services which a local authority find it necessary to provide themselves or by arrangement with another local authority, or with any voluntary or other body in connection with the performance of the local authority's functions under the welfare enactments;

"voluntary organisation" means a body the activities of which are carried on otherwise than for profit, but does not include any public or local authority;")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 103:

Page 14, line 10, after ("and") insert ("sections 7 and 8 of ").

The noble Lord said: This is another technical amendment correcting the definition of the welfare enactments in Clause 12 as it applies to Scotland. I beg to move

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 [Short title, commencement, regulations, orders and extent]:

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 104:

Page 14, line 17, leave out ("made by statutory instrument")

The noble Baroness said: This is a purely technical amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 105:

Page 14, line 19, at end insert (" , and different provision may be made under this subsection for England and Wales and for Scotland").

The noble Lord said: This amendment recognises that different circumstances regarding the implementation of Great Britain or United Kingdom legislation can and do arise north and south of the border and seeks to adapt the Bill's commencement provisions to the possible need for separate commencement of individual provisions.

It is likely that the Government will wish to see the various provisions of the Bill commenced simultaneously throughout the country. It must be recognised, however, that commencement will depend in practice on a number of factors, including the availability of resources (both financial and human). This point was made clear at the Second Reading debate and in another place.

I can fully assure the Committee that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has every intention of implementing the Bill as it finally emerges from consideration in another place just as quickly as can be done in the circumstances prevailing at the time and in the light of consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The resources available, however, may be subject to different pressures and priorities north and south of the border and a facility for separate commencement is clearly necessary to ensure that the provisions are commenced in Scotland at the time which is most appropriate in Scottish circumstances, and I commend the amendment to the Committee on this basis.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I very much hope that this Bill will be extended to Northern Ireland as the other countries have been mentioned.

Baroness Trumpington

Northern Ireland has a separate and distinctive structure for the delivery of health and personal social services. It is most notably a fully integrated service under the area health and social services board. It is important that there should be an opportunity for local consultation in Northern Ireland, and that that process should be able to take into account the quite different administrative structures and circumstances. Such consultation will of course, be put in hand if the Bill is enacted.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 106:

Page 14, line 21, after ("and") insert ("(except in the case of an order under subsection (2))")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.